[CASE NUMBER] 27.11.2014 Mr.[ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.[ENTITY], learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioners under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has assailed the validity of the award dated 08.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation by which the petitioner alongwith the respondent No.3 has been held jointly and severally liable to make payment of amount of Rs.2,65,000/- by way of compensation to respondents No.1 & 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that against the aforesaid award an appeal lies under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short 'the Act"). However, the award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation is violative of [SECTION] of the Act inasmuch as liability to pay the amount of Compensation ought to have been saddled with respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the award passed by the Commissioner, [ACT] is contrary to law laid down by Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT].
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that since the statutes provides specific remedy, therefore, this Court should not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that statute in question, namely, [ACT] provides a remedy of appeal to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] has held that availability of alternative remedy is not a constitutional bar to the High Court's jurisdiction but is a self-imposed restriction. It has further been held that alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. The counsel for the petitioner was unable to point that the present case fall in any of the aforesaid categories which have been mentioned by the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra).
The Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] has held that while exercising powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] the High Court should bear in mind the self imposed restrained and when the alternative remedy is provided by the statute, the person concerned should be relegated to avail of the alternative remedy.
For the aforementioned reasons, I am not inclined to exercise the writ jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail of the remedy of appeal which is provided to him under the Act.
Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned award on substitution thereof by a photocopy.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
([ENTITY]) Judge RM