AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is the classic example of the abuse of Court''s process. A few facts would be necessary to understand the controversy.
An accident occurred in the premises of the petitioner Shri Venkateswara Industries. That was during the course of employment, or atleast that
is the case of the respondent who on the basis of that accident, filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. He
complained that he had lost his right hand in the accident. The accident is admitted. Be that as it may, during the course of the enquiry on 15.12.92,
it was found that the concerned employer did not turn up. The matter was proceeded ex parte and the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner
awarded the compensation of Rs.59,120 on that very day by passing the order on merits. In that, the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner
also considered the nature of the industry, the salary earned by the workman and the evidence left by the workman who had examined himself as
P.W.1.
Be that as it may. Treating that to be an ex parte order, the petitioner Management filed a petition for restoration of the case for disposal on
merits. The said petition is before the Court, in which it appears that the petitioner has pleaded that due to breakdown of auto, he arrived late and
had found that the enquiry had been closed. This is the only reason given. This affidavit was rejected and the Commissioner, Workmen''s
Compensation passed the impugned order dated 22.4.1993, wherein he took the view that the order passed on 15.12.1992 could not be set aside
and the matter could not be restored. He found the reason given to be without any merits or substance.
It is this order dated 22.4.1993 which is in challenge in the present writ petition. In paragraph 8, the only order which has been challenged is the
one dated 22.4.1993 which was passed in I.A.No.4 of 1993. The original order dated 15.12.1992 is not in challenge anywhere. However, only a
stay order of enforcement, implementation and operation of that order dated 15.12.1992 is prayed for. The Court admitted this writ petition on
10.8.1993. On that day, even interim stay was granted and the matter was directed to be posted as soon as the respondents were served.
Needless to mention that thereafter it never saw the light of the day till today and remained pending for almost eight years. During this time, again it
goes without saying that the payment of compensation was obviously not made and all this was achieved without filing an appeal u/s 30 against the
order passed on 15.12.1992 on merits in W.C.No.93 of 1992. It is trite law that an appeal u/s 30 cannot be preferred unless the ordered
compensation is first deposited. Here is a writ petition where not even one farthing was deposited and yet the stay order continued for eight long
years, that too without filing an appeal against the original order. The Court expresses its anguish.
Needless to mention that before that, one must decide the writ petition insofar as it pertains to the refusal of the Commissioner, Workmen''s
Compensation Act to restore the matter. The only reason given for the absence was that there was an engine failure of the auto rickshaw by which
the petitioner was travelling to the Court and that in the process, the petitioner reached late. All the details are essentially absent as to at what time
did the autorickshaw developed the trouble, as to the spot where the trouble was developed, as also the time when the petitioner allegedly reached
the Court.
In my opinion, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner in rejecting the application. This is
apart from the fact that the original application is not for ""setting aside the so-called ex parte order"". The application was only for ''restoration of the
proceedings''. There is no point in going further because this Court does not find any fault with the order passed. This is apart from the fact that the
original order has remained under the cloud of stay without there being any appeal filed against it. The writ petition is dismissed with the costs of
Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only). Consequently, connected WMP No.22819 of 1993 is also dismissed.