IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 794 of 2010(Y) ----------------------------------- WCC.NO.211/2004 W.C.C., KANNUR. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- T.A.MOHAMMED HABEEBULLA, S/O.K.S.ABDULLA, CHAIRMAN, MALIKDEENAR CHARITABLE HOSPITAL, TALANGARA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.SHRIHARI RAO, SMT.N.SHOBHA, MR.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. A.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED JIN, ULIYATHADKA, MADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD.P.O, 682 304, KASARGODE. 2. FAUUZIYA P.M., W/O.H.MOHAMMED, ULIYATHADKA, MADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, 682 304. 3. C.H.MOHAMMED, ENGINEER, S/O.C.H.ABDUL JALEEL, RESIDING AT PARAVANADUKE, CHENNAD VILLAGE, P.O.PARAVANADUKA (VIA) KALNAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, 682 304. 4. MUSTHAFA.M.A., S/O.KUNHI, RESIDING AT ULIYATHADKA, MADHUR VILLAGE AND POST, MADHUR.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT – 682 304. 5. THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KANNUR.P.O, 682 304, KANNUR. R5 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 794 of 2010 - Y ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2010 Judgment The petitioner is the Chairman of Malikdeenar Charitable Hospital in Kasaragod district. He is also the first opposite party in W.C.C. No.211 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Kannur. Notice of W.C.C.No.211 of 2004 was issued to the petitioner on 3.3.2009. The date fixed for appearance was 24.3.2009. Though the petitioner was served, he did not appear. The case was thereafter posted to 29.4.2009, 15.4.2009, 11.6.2009, 23.7.2009 and 21.8.2009. Since the petitioner did not appear on any of the dates, he was set exparte. The petitioner thereafter filed an application to set aside the order setting him exparte. In that application, he contended that an inspection was conducted by the All Indian Council for Technical Education, New Delhi continuously from 24.3.2009 to 17.9.2009 in his establishment and that was the reason why he could not appear even after receipt of summons. By Ext.P2 W.P.(C) No. 794/2010 2 order passed on 23.11.2009, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kannur rejected the said application holding that the reason set out in the application is unbelievable. Ext.P2 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.K. Shri Hari Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is evident from the pleadings that in spite of receipt of summons from the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the petitioner did not appear on the first posting date, namely 24.3.2009 or on the succeeding posting dates. He was therefore set exparte on 21.8.2009. In the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the order setting him exparte, he contended that his establishment was being inspected by the All Indian Council for Technical Education, New Delhi from 24.3.2009 to 17.9.2009, namely for about six months and therefore, he was unable to appear. As noticed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the said plea is unbelievable and does not merit acceptance. First of all, the petitioner is the Chairman of a charitable hospital. It is not W.P.(C) No. 794/2010 3 stated how and in what manner the All Indian Council for Technical Education is concerned with the said hospital. The petitioner has also not produced any material to show that as a matter of fact there was such an inspection. Further, even if there was such an inspection, the statement that the inspection lasted for six months cannot be believed. Further, from the conduct of the petitioner, it is evident that he did not deliberately appear notwithstanding receipt of summons from the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The reason stated by the petitioner in the application filed by him to set aside the order setting him exparte does not in my opinion merit acceptance. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any ground warranting interference with Ext.P2. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa