Sureshkumar K.N. vs Commissioner of Employees Compensation

Mr. K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner has filed the above writ petition, challenging recovery proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent, as seen at Ext.P7 dated 12.10.2015. The Revenue Recovery proceedings were issued for recovery of amounts due under an Award passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner [for brevity ''ECC''] at Ext.P7. The petitioner claimed that the Award was passed ex parte and also that an application to set aside the ex parte Award was filed before the Commissioner.

When Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition, contending that the application for setting aside the ex parte order is pending consideration before the Commissioner. This Court, by judgment dated 26.03.2013 in WP(C) No. 8581 of 2013, directed that the applications filed before the Commissioner would be considered, but also directed that a sum of Rupees Two lakhs be deposited within a period of three weeks for immediate disbursement to the claimant and her two children. An appeal filed was also dismissed by judgment dated 26.02.2014 in WA No. 1077 of 2013.

Subsequently, the Industrial Tribunal was notified as the Employees Compensation Commissioner. The applications to set aside the ex parte Award was dismissed for default. The instant Revenue Recovery proceedings were issued at that time. The petitioner, from the very same Revenue Recovery notice, filed WP(C) No.37054 of 2015, in which an interim order of stay was granted as per Ext.P9 and extended as per Ext.P10. Eventually, the petitioner filed applications to restore the applications for condonation of delay and setting aside of ex parte Award. After having filed the said applications, the petitioner contended before this Court that steps have been taken before the Employees Compensation Commissioner in ECC No. 111 of 2014 and submitted that the writ petition can be closed as infructuous. The application for restoration of the earlier applications are still pending before the ECC.

The petitioner having once challenged the Revenue Recovery proceedings before this Court and sought for closing of the same as infructuous, cannot turn around and challenge the Revenue Recovery proceedings yet again. In such circumstance, the writ petition is to be dismissed and I do so.

The Revenue Recovery proceedings shall be proceeded against the petitioner and if any money is recovered, the same shall be kept with the ECC disbursing it to the claimant, unless final orders are passed in the petitions before the Commissioner. The 2nd respondent shall immediately take proceedings for recovery of the amounts from the petitioner and stay of proceedings shall be granted only on payment of at least half the amount sought to be recovered.

Considering the sad plight of the claimant, who has been agitating her cause for the last 11 years before the ECC, it is felt necessary to issue appropriate orders to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submit that the matter is posted on 10.06.2016 for production of documents by the petitioner and it is also submitted that the ECC has specifically directed the 3rd respondent to be present on 17.06.2016. On 17.06.2016, the applications shall be taken up, heard and orders shall be passed within a week. The restoration application and the application for setting aside the ex parte order shall be taken up together and considered. The parties are directed to cooperate. If the ex parte Award is set aside, then necessarily the evidence shall be taken and the entire proceedings finalised within two months from the date of setting aside of the ex parte Award.

The writ petition would stand dismissed with the above directions. No costs.