WP No.3340I2007 Sri.Sanjay Sliatagcri, Adv for R2) V _ This petition is filed under Articles 226 the _ Cozzsfitution of India praying to qua-mh._the .order= .9-.:1s;<md»Vi1x,_ wcwmisc. No.2 of 2006 dt.14.[11.2(_)[}§ 'th_e" Coxnmissimzzer for Worlmen, vide etc, ». W This petition comm' g 1'3»T.t_V'§:">'*;.-'... 'E' L' group, this day, the Court made "'t},3e»fo1I<xwi11_g:"Ae . e %_........a R 1r2.....w@ Reee L I. This writ petifion. is 'The case of the 29*' respondent 'is; :}:__1e wéls duties under the
petitioner. 3 ‘Fa, of employment, he
and ring finger. He
was taitcexi ._tO treatment and the injuries:
resulted A ciaim is lodged by the
‘~ _ i*es;_i en;_1entAA “f0r…<::ompeg1sation before the ' Commissioner
' flompensaiion. The petitioner was notified.
it entrusteci the matter to a counsel 150
put; But thereafter vam.s' heti. The
V» V' V. vwsings commenced and engled awazding compensation
{he 21"' mspondent. Smoe the petifianer was not
u "fepresented during the course of the enquiry before the
/
9%'
Commissioner, he filed an applicafion under Order IX Rule fl
WP No.3340 12007
13 0f the Code of Civil for setting asigité
award. The Commissioner was 9f,' the u
become functus oificio and was in:_ a;..*
recall his own order. Hence,
2. Mr. Hegde, fQ:$f’tI1e”£1efitioncr
submits that the commgsg-;n¢r;§&s jgsfified in rejecting
the application’ ‘ the Workmezfs
-..{f<v31r"<s§§v.V_cx:'r'§_ Rules') empowers
the under Order
osi*i:io'n fair
IX Rule 137gft_t.e _,
3. Mr.-.S.”F.a1iagt}é1ti, counsel for the 2″‘
:.1€s130nI{73i’1t petitioner is required to file an
At”;/.5 –Woxkmcnfis Compcnsatinn Act (for short
fthc the rejection” of the application is
award. He also places reliance on a
é of-.t}:1i#”‘Cou1’t in the case of snzxmsmm mm vs.
jimrax am 2005 ms 29%.
.4 Before considez-mg the merits of the case, the decision
.-uzeiicd on by the 2″‘ respondent is to be lookw into. fl
u\
WP M3340/2007
Appamnfly, that was a case where an H
passed and an applicafion was filed under –«
CPC and the Commissioner has >ti::§’
on merits. Hence, in those o
the View that an appeal would Act V
and mcoume cannot of the
Rules. Hence, I am of decision is not
applicabie.
5. be noticed that for the
masolis _t1r.c’ petitioner, he could act
part1’Cipa t£: the. The counsel whom he had
cn.gagcd_a1sou dicfnot in the proceedings. Hence,
. r:31§:iccf&cxpazte. Rule 41 of the Rules would
certain provisions of CPC would apply to
Quiodcr Workmcnfs (bmpensation Act. Indeed, it
V’-»Wouid” that Older IX in its entirety is applicable.
fiifhcii’, it is so, the Commissioner was not justifieci in
the application on the ground that he does not have
juxistiictigm inasmuch as he has become functus oflicio.
indeed, I am not inclined to oonsiicr Wiznethcr the awaxtt fl
wv No.3340,12em
: 5 :
passed by the Oommissioncr at the fizst instance
considered as an expartc as that would 1Yf:q11iIfjE72:”€3Vi:(ii€E£iCa?3;..ii€)’
be adduced on behalf of the pefitionc; as ‘£5533: 2″*{i
respondent in support of their I:ié1d:euc.:;$,~AiuiI1i$
required to be done by’ _ thga
Consequently, the following ordéf-£5; p.a__sse£ii ~ . T_
Petition is at Am1cxum–
F rejecting the appficaficfi f:311’cvlr:A«I; Oif1_cif’ ‘Rule 13 on the
gonna of §ta;§dsvv”;§ét”‘éisidc. The matter
“.:.!18”-Com’ m’ jssidglcr for flesh disposai in
a<:coIt1Va11cs:'wiflfi:1V itstozc the said application to
the file in accordance with law having
, A' xegafiéd the in 'be let in by the petitioner as well as
*__ » % xflgpqndent
' A Rtzléi iiézsned and made absoiutc.
sa/5
15:55
Jm./-