1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4079 OF 2009 Shri Deelip Madhav Badgujar & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Smt. Shobha Narendra Patil & others .. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4081 OF 2009 Shri Deelip Madhav Badgujar & another .. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Bhatu Govinda Patil & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.H. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos 1 and 2. Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate holding for Mr. Y.L. jadhav, Advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== 2 CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 29th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Interlocutory orders during the pendency of the claim before the Labour Court, Dhule, lodged under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act by the respondents is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 Respondents presented applications to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation claiming compensation from the employer, which came to be registered as WCA 16/2007 and WCA 17/2007. It is the contention of the applicants before the Commissioners, respondents herein that the deceased was serving with the petitioner and while performing his duties, he met with an accident and as such the legal heirs of deceased are claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 3 3 Petitioners herein after causing their appearance have raised contention that infact the work was allotted to the co-operative society by the Electricity department and they cannot be made personally liable in respect of claim lodged by the claimants. On presentation of the written statement by the petitioners herein, the original applicants / respondents herein presented application seeking amendment to the petition and sought to incorporate the cooperative society alongwith the petitioners herein as party to the claim petition. Claimants / respondents herein sought leave to add the co-operative society as well as the Chairman of the society in his individual capacity as well as in his official capacity as party in the claim petition. Amendment application was allowed and necessary amendment is effected in the claim petition. Petitioners herein again presented application seeking deletion of their names contending that they cannot be made party tot he claim petition in their individual capacity as the work in question was allotted by the society and they being the office bearers of the society, can only be held responsible and not in their individual capacity. Trial court has turned down the applications by recording a reasoned order. 4 I have perused the order passed by the trial court as well as heard 4 arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. It is the contention of the petitioners that once it is brought to the notice of the court that the work in question was allotted by the co-operative society, the petitioners herein being the office bearers of the trust can be held responsible only in their capacity as office bearers of the trust and not in their individual capacity and as such, their names are required to be struck off from the record. On perusal of the application tendered to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, it transpires that the petitioners in the claim petition are made respondents in the application in their individual capacity as well as in their capacity as the office bearers of the society. Trial court has recorded one circumstance for turning down the application at the interlocutory stage and that is in respect of advancement of amount prior to presentation of the petition from the personal account of the petitioners herein. It would not be appropriate to make any comment on the merits of the controversy at this interlocutory stage and it would be open for the Commissioner to render appropriate decision after recording evidence of the parties and record finding as to whether the petitioners herein can be held responsible in their individual capacity also in the matter of payment of compensation. No interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at this 5 stage. Petitions are devoid of substance, hence stand rejected summarily. 5 In view of dismissal of petitions, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp4079.09.odt