The Medical Director vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour -1

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioner challenged the order of recovery passed by the second respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, No. I, Chennai, granting compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act.

It is stated that the petitioner has filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Workmen''s Compensation Tribunal, Chennai, under the provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. Furthermore, it is stated that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, has also been complied with, by depositing the amount in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, without prejudice to the appeal.

In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, under the Workmen Compensation Act, when there is an appeal remedy available to the petitioner under Section 30 of the said Act.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to proceed with the appeal in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.