AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—The present revision has been preferred under Art. 227 of The Constitution of India seeking for transfer of
W.C.No.22 of 1998 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, the second respondent herein to the file of the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour Tirunelveli.
According to the petitioner the approach of the second respondent is unfair, unlawful, unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of the
Workman''s Compensation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the
application filed by the first respondent u/s 22 of The Workmen''s Compensation Act since the accident in question took place at Tirunelveli,
outside the jurisdiction of the second respondent, and the first respondent is ordinarily residing at Thuraiyur, Tirunelveli. Therefore the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli alone has the jurisdiction to try the dispute.
It is contended that the first respondent had admitted that she was a resident of Thuraiyur in Tirunelveli District during cross examination and not
residing at Madurai and therefore the second respondent has no jurisdiction. It is further alleged that the second respondent has personal bias
against the revision petitioner as the petitioner had declined to compromise the mater, as suggested by the second respondent. The second
respondent has acted in excess of the jurisdiction and always went on passing orders without following the fair procedure and without deciding the
jurisdictional issue. It is further contended that the entire claim against the petitioner is false and fictitious. Certain expressions made by the second
respondent during the hearing is also stated and relied upon as a ground for transfer as it reflects bias on the part of second respondent and he will
not act fairly, as an independent quasi judicial authority.
Per contra, Mr. M. Chinnasamy, learned Special Government Pleader contends that the first respondent is residing within the jurisdiction of the
second respondent and therefore the first respondent could maintain the claim. Though the incident occurred in Tirunelveli District, there is no bar
for the second respondent entertaining the claim. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was always trying to avoid the claim as seen from the
fact that the petitioner had moved this court on more than one occasion.
It is to be pointed out here that when allegations of bias and mala fides had been alleged against the second respondent by impleading him
personally, it is incumbent on the part of the second respondent to have come forward and file a counter. In the absence of a counter by the
second respondent, allegations of bias and allegations that the second respondent has been acting unfairly or unreasonably or arbitrarily has to be
sustained. Certain portions of the order dated 31.1.2002 passed by the second respondent also reflects on the second respondent. It reads thus:-
Thereafter the respondent has filed an I.A. Petition dated 9.9.2000 praying to set aside the exparte order dated 2.8.2000 alleging some false,
mischievous contentions spoiling the image of this court. A notice from this court dated 28.9.2000 was issued why it should not be brought to the
notice of the Bar Council for further action. No reply was received from the counsel. However, a cost of Rs.10000/= was imposed to set aside the
exparte order. Aggrieved over this order, the respondent had filed a petition before the High Court, Chennai to stay all the proceedings of this
court. The Hon''ble High Court, Chennai in CMP.No.7110/01 in CRP.1311/2001 dated 24.7.2001 has passed an order for payment of
Rs.5000/= as cost for setting aside the ex parte order. Further, the High Court, Chennai also directed to dispose of the main case within a period
of three months.
In the meanwhile, the respondent has filed a petition raising a preliminary objection dated 26.12.01 over jurisdiction and to transfer this case to the
Commissioenr for Workman''s Compensation, Tirunelveli. This plea was rejected by this court.
Thereafter, the respondent has filed a petition dated 26.12.01 read above to issue the certified copies of affidavit petition and transfer petition. It is
also brought to the notice of the respondent that he is delaying the proceedings paving way for contempt of Hon''ble High Court direction in
disposing of this case within 3 months.
The portion extracted above would show the mind of the second respondent as well as his approach which approach has made the petitioner to
comment. In the administration of justice be it judicial or quasi judicial, fairness is most important and justice should be seen to be done. This
aspect of the matter is being highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner. Even if a revision is preferred, the Presiding Officer cannot take it
personally and treat as if such revision is a challenge to his order, or as an affront to his authority. Being a quasi judicial authority the second
respondent is expected to act fairly and reasonably and there shall be no bias nor there could be a room for bias and justice should be seen to be
rendered. Ex facie, a perusal of the portion extracted above would show that the second respondent Thiru A. Chandran, Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Madurai, has not acted fairly and he has also failed to keep himself as an independent authority creating confidence in the minds of the
claimants/objectors who appear before the said authority. The objection to the claim may be true or may not be true or may be even frivolous.
Yet, the objection has to be considered and the claim has to be decided fairly, reasonably and justice should be seen to be done.
Apart from the above aspect, on the earlier occasion the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order dated 2.8.2000 in
W.C.No.22 of 1998, where the petitioner had alleged that the case was initially filed by one Chandran who is a court clerk and who is influencing
in passing the orders. But the said Interlocutory Application was dismissed on 23.2.2001. In the affidavit filed in support of the said Interlocutory
Application, the following averments have been set out:-
Initially W.C.No.22/98 was filed by one Chandran. He is a court clerk and influencing the passing of order. But that petition was dismissed by this
Honourable Court on 28.12.1999. After the dismissal of W.C.22/98 the matter ends. The filing of a fresh petition by one Antoni Ammal was not
known to me. I never received the copy of the new petition. When a new petition is filed, fresh W.C. Number ought to have been given, and fresh
notice ought to have been issued tome. But no notice was given to me. The said Chandran, Court Clerk has influenced to adopt an illegal
procedure, without notice to me, to get an ex parte order. The whole proceedings is void.
I am living at Tirunelveli. I engaged a Lawyer to appear for me. But unfortunately, no intimation was given to me or to my lawyer about the enquiry
in the above case. On account of that, I had no opportunity to know the proceedings. I was also ill from 2.3.2000 to 30.5.2000 and the medical
certificate is herewith enclosed"".
On the filing of such an affidavit, the second respondent had sent a notice to Mr. S. Ahamed Hassan, Advocate, counsel appearing for the
petitioner herein to the effect that if the allegations are brought out to the notice of the court with the supporting affidavit, the matter will be brought
to the notice of the Bar Council for further action, besides directed the advocate to desist from throwing mudslinging complaint against his
proceedings and returned the said application. Once again an identical affidavit has been filed in the said I.A.No.10 of 2001. In the said
Interlocutory Application, the second respondent passed the following order:-
Take further notice that in default of your appearance on that day before mentioned the matter will be heard and determined in your absence.
I.A., will be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1000/= which should be paid at the time of first hearing on 19.3.2000. Otherwise, the petition will
automatically get dismissed.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.2.2001, a revision was preferred before this Court in CRP.No.1311 of 2001. F. IBRAHIM
KALIFULLA, J., finally on 24.7.2001 held thus:-
Admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner before the order dated 2.8.2000 passed by the Commissioner for workmen Compensation.
During the pendency of this revision, while continuing the stay, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/= to the respondents as a
condition precedent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said sum has been paid and the learned counsel for the respondent also confirmed the receipt of
payment. In the circumstances, when admittedly the order dated 2.8.200 came to be passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation
without any notice to the petitioner, the petitioner is justified in claiming that he should be heard on merits on the claim of the respondent.
After the above order, the petitioner has filed his objections and one of the objections being that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to
entertain the petition since the alleged incident had taken place in Tirunelveli District and the claimant is not residing in the address given in the claim
petition. The petitioner also filed an application to consider his objections regarding jurisdiction as a preliminary objection. The claimant in her
examination admitted that she is residing at Thuraiyur, that the address in her claim petition as if she is residing at Madurai is not correct. She has
also deposed that she was not aware of the filing of the claim petition. The said admissions rather advance the very objection raised by the revision
petitioner.
That apart, on 13.12.2001, the revision petitioner has filed an affidavit before the second respondent alleging that he is being compelled to
settle the disputes. Once again another affidavit dated 26.12.2001 has been filed by the revision petitioner alleging that he has been compelled to
compromise the matter with the respondent while wielding threat. It is further stated that the petitioner may not get justice and he has sought for a
transfer of the proceeding.
In the affidavit, the petitioner had specifically made allegations against the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Workmen''s
compensation at Madurai that he has no jurisdiction. Further, his request for transfer of the case has been rejected and the order dated 31.1.2002
is extracted above. In fact, by order dated 5.2.2002, the second respondent had declined to furnish certified copy of the affidavit and transfer
petition stating that there is no need. According to the petitioner, this again would demonstrate the second respondent being not fair.
In the light of the above background, this court is of the considered view that in all fairness the second respondent should have relieved himself
of the proceedings as an independent authority, instead of taking an extreme stand and insisting that the petitioner should go on with the matter.
When the first respondent herself had admitted that she is residing at Thuraiyur,(Tirunelveli District) even on the date of filing of the petition as
well as subsequently, it is rather extraordinary for the second respondent to have retained the matter on his file. Section 21 of the Workmen''s
Compensation Act, 1923 provides that a petition shall be filed before the Commissioner for the area in which the accident took place which
resulted in the injury of the workman, or in case of his death, the dependent claiming compensation ordinarily resides, or the employer has his
registered office.
In the light of the admission of the claimant that she is permanently residing at Thuraiyur, in Tirunelveli District and the alleged incident took
place in Tirunelveli District the venue of the proceedings in terms of Section 21 shall be before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation,
Tirunelveli District. In this case a specific objection has been raised and the evidence of the claimant herself before the second respondent is fatal.
The relevant portion of her evidence reads thus:-
In the light of the above discussions, though Mr. M. Chinnasamy, learned Special Government Pleader persuasively contended that the second
respondent has jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, this court is unable to sustain the same. It is clear from the above discussions the second
respondent has no jurisdiction and only to confer jurisdiction a such version has been set out as if she is residing within the jurisdiction of the
second respondent. This position is cleared from the above admission of the claimant before the second respondent. Much could be said against
the second respondent. But judicial restraint requires this court to desist from adding anything more. The second respondent himself, as already
pointed out should have relinquished himself from the proceedings as against him serious allegations have been made and he has failed to act
reasonably and fairly. For the foregoing reasons, this court order transfer of the Claim Petition in W.C.No.22 of 1998 from the file of the Second
respondent to the file of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli.
In the result, the CRP is allowed and there will be a direction directing the second respondent to transfer W.C.No.22 of 1998 pending on his
file to the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Tirunelveli.
Consequently, connected CMP is closed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.