Eg:a"sija:a(5ser H!GH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISQARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETiTION N0.3824 OF Nathmal Murarka, aged about 70 years, son of Late Shrl Blharilal Murarlta, Murarka PetrolPump, Main Road, Korba (Chhattisgarh) Vs. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Tahsildar, Tah. Korba, Distt. Korba (C-G.) Sheetat Singh, son of Kale Singh, aged about 56 years, Seetamani, Korba, Tah and Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) Present: Mr. Sanjay Ku. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4'" January, 2006) The petitioner herein despite service of notice on him did not appear betore the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in a proceeding initiated at the instance of the second respondent herein under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the ActY As a result, the Commissloner for Workmen's Compensation piaced the petitioner ex parte and passed the order. After passing the order, the petitioner moved an application before the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation under Order 9 Rute 13 C.P.C on the ground that he had no notice of the proceedings. The Commissionsr having found no substance in that allegation and satisfying himself that the petitioner had notice of the proceedings dismissed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order as weil as the main order made under Section 10 of the Act, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. If the petitioner, to hts peril, notwtthstanding sen/ice of noSice on him of the proceedings initiated -3.- ••!;:NA^fe under Section 10 of th®Act did not choose to put in appearance and defend himself, he cannot turn round and contend that he was prejudiced by the order made by th®Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation undsr Section 'IOoftheAct. There is absolutely no good cause shown by the petitioner not to appear before the Commissioner before he made fte order under Section 10 of the Act. The writ pefition is, therefore, dismissed, however, wiih no costs. — - - __ __ ___ _ Sd/- Chief Justice Ka^yi-e^ l:-';^fj-^^fe'