CR No.710 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.710 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 07.07.2009
Yogesh Mohan Singla ..Petitioner
Vs.
Smt.Asha Panchal & Ors. ..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.D.Kaushik, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate,
for respondent No.6.
Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)
CM No.2521-CII of 2008
Allowed as prayed for.
CR No.710 of 2008
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated
30.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen’s
CR No.710 of 2008 2
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act) dismissing his application for
setting aside ex parte order vide which claimants were awarded
compensation of Rs.2,18,115.50P, along with interest.
It was averred in the application that the petitioner had
engaged a counsel to represent him, but his counsel chose not to appear on
the date fixed, the factum of his non-appearance and passing of ex parte
order was not in his knowledge. Learned Commissioner dismissed the
application by holding that no reason, whatsoever, was disclosed as to why
the counsel did not appear on the date fixed, even though the date of hearing
was within his knowledge.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
vehemently contended that the petitioner had engaged a counsel to
represent him and therefore, necessary steps had been taken to contest the
case, therefore, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer for the fault of
his counsel.
In support of this contention the learned counsel has placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq
and another Vs. Munshilal and another AIR 1981 SC 1400, wherein
Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that where a party
engages a counsel, it may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will
look after his interest. If the party has taken steps within its power to
effectively participate in the proceedings, it cannot be punished for default
on the part of the counsel.
Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that in case such
CR No.710 of 2008 3
application is rejected it would be the party which would suffer for no fault.
This is the situation, in the present case as disclosed from the
impugned order itself. It has also been stated that 50 per cent of the amount
granted already stands deposited by the petitioner. The bona fides of the
petitioner are proved.
For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. The application moved for setting aside ex
parte order is allowed, and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner,
under Workmen’s Compensation Act for adjudication of the claim on merit
after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest.
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before
the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation, Act, Faridabad on
6.8.2009.
Revision allowed.
07.07. 2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge