BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/09/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. CHANDRU REVIEW APPLICATION(MD)No.24 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.2 & 3 of 2008 Mrs.Lakshmi ..Petitioner vs 1.V.N.Jeyaprakash 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, Dindigul District. ..Respondents PRAYER This Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure Code r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to review the order dated 28.04.2008 in W.P.(MD)No.3977 of 2008 on the file of this Court and to set aside the same. !For petitioner ... Mr.I.Suthakaran ^For Respondent No.1... Mr.H.Velavadhas For Respondent No.2 ... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate :ORDER
This Review Application filed by the petitioner seeking to review the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3977 of 2008 dated 28.04.2008.
2.The main writ petition was filed by the first respondent in
W.P.(MD)No.3977 of 2008, seeking for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Dindigul, to dispose of the interim application dated 05.10.2007 in
accordance with law.
3.In that writ petition, deliberately the first respondent did not implead
the review petitioner, even though she was the applicant before the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, in W.C.No.233 of 2005.
4.In that Workmen’s Compensation Case, the revision petitioner sought for
compensation on account of death of her husband Mr.Thondhi on 16.08.2004 when he
was in the employment of the first respondent.
5.In the Workmen’s Compensation Case, a trial was conducted and the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, has passed an order dated 28.09.2007 and
directed a compensation of Rs.1,71,664/- to be paid to the revision petitioner,
out of which, 50% is to be paid by the first respondent and another 50% to be
paid by one N.Govindhan, who was also made a party to the workmen’s compensation
case referred to above. The judgment of the Commissioner for Compensation was
not appealed in terms of Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
6.On the contrary, the first respondent had filed a filed very innocuous
application stating that it is an exparte order and that the same should be set
aside. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation had not ordered any such
notice and even the existence of such an application before the Commissioner is
doubtful. However, the writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to the
Commissioner to dispose of its interim application allegedly pending before the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul. In that writ petition for reasons best
known to the first respondent he had failed make the affected party namely the
revision petitioner as a party.
7.On the contrary, the writ petition was disposed of by granting a
direction to the Commissioner, to decide the same on merits within a period of
six weeks. Only notice was given to the learned Additional Government Pleader
and even before any counter affidavit could be filed, the writ petition was
disposed of at the admission stage itself.
8.Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner, being the third
party in the writ petition has filed the present writ petition after obtaining
leave from this Court. The Review application is liable to be allowed on the
following grounds:-
a) First, the revision petitioner was not made as a party in the writ
petition. Therefore, no order could have been passed by the learned single
Judge without any notice to the proper authority.
b) The Deputy Commissioner of Labour is only the authority, but the
beneficiary before him has not been made as a party.
c) In any event, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage,
which is not permissible without any benefit of any counter even by the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour.
d) It is rather unfortunate that the Additional Government Pleader should
take notice and had not filed any reply to the contentions raised by the first
respondent/writ petitioner.
e) In any event, against the final award passed the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, a regular appeal lies to the Court under Section 30 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act. It is in order to avoid pre-deposit, the petitioner has taken
the circuitous of filing the writ petition.
f) This Court has in more than one writ petition in the matter of
Workmen’s Compensation has ordered, that a writ petition is not the remedy and
the person has to move a regular appeal provided under the Act.
9.Under such circumstances, the Review Application stands allowed and the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3977 of 2008 dated 28.04.2008 stands is
recalled with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid by the
first respondent to the revision petitioner. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
er/tk
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.