Satpura Infracon Pvt. Ltd. vs Sharda Dahiya

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17-09-2019 to the extent the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation Jabalpur (Labour Court) while allowing his application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC directed the present applicant to deposit Rs. 2 lacs before the Court which can be utilized for treatment of the respondent.

Criticizing this order, Shri Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is an onerous condition imposed by the Court below, which runs contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Industries & Ors. vs. M.P. Electricity Board, Rampur Jabalpur reported in (2002) 3 SCC 159.

During the course of hearing, Shri Ahiwasi fairly submits that no doubt, there exists a discretion with the Court to issue certain conditions including the direction to deposit certain amount but the amount so directed to be deposited is on a higher side in this case and if ultimately claimant fails to make out a case in the original side, it will not be possible to recover the said amount.

Prayer is opposed by Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the other side by contending that the present civil revision is not maintainable in view of 2010 (1) MPLJ 98 (Johra Bi & Ors. vs. Jageshwar & Ors.). By placing reliance on 2013 (2) MPLJ 198 (Kehar Singh vs. Durjan Singh Gond), it is submitted that the Court below was competent to pass the impugned order. Sufficient opportunity was given to the present applicant to appear and putforth his defence. Despite sufficient opportunity, the applicant did not appear. The Court below took a lenient view and permitted the applicant to appear. If the respondent/claimant fails to make out a case or his claim application is rejected, he undertakes to repay the amount utilized by him to the present applicant.

I have heard the parties at length on this aspect.

In Para 25 of Johra Bi (supra), this Court opined as under:-

"25. In 2002 AIR Kant HCR 1823 (1831), the petition filed under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code before the District Judge for transfer of suit is a proceeding independent of the suit. Order rejecting the petition is revisable. Proviso to section 115 was not attracted in such cases. In 2005 (25) All Ind Cas 719 (720) it was held that revision against order allowing application under O. 9, R. 13 is maintainable. Proviso added to section 115 does not bar the revision."

(Emphasis Supplied)

In this view of the matter, I am unable to hold that this revision is not maintainable. In Kehar Singh (supra), it was made clear that the Commissioner can adopt such procedure which is in consonance with Rule 41 of Workmen Compensation Rules, 1924. As per this judgment, it cannot be said that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to direct for depositing Rs.2 lacs. Interestingly, Shri Ahiwasi has not argued that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction at all for directing the deposit of said amount. His argument was that said condition is onerous and if the amount is deposited and utilized by the claimant, he will not be able to recover the same. However, this argument will not cut any ice in view of undertaking of the claimant that in the event his case is dismissed by the Commissioner, he will refund the amount to the present applicant.

In view of this undertaking of respondent/claimant, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The Court below has taken a plausible view, which does not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent shall file an affidavit before the Commissioner within 30 days from today stating that the amount deposited by the applicant is utilized by him and ultimately his non fatal claim case is dismissed, he will refund the said amount to the applicant-employer.

This revision is disposed of.