Civil Revision No.4439 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-20.7.2010 Chand Singh son of Ram Kishan ...Petitioner Versus Prem and Joginder Singh ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner Chand Singh son of Ram Kishan filed a petition against respondents Prem and Joginder Singh before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.6 lacs on account of injuries suffered by him during his employment alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 2. The respondents initially contested the claim of the petitioner and filed written statement, but subsequently as they did not appear, so, the exparte award was passed against them. On 20.4.2009, as soon as the respondents received letter directing them to deposit the amount of Rs.283777/- as compensation, then they moved an application for setting aside the exparte award on the ground that the original claim petition had already been dismissed in default on 16.11.2007 and no notice thereafter was sent to them and pendency of the proceedings was not in their knowledge. 3. The prayer of the respondents was contested by the petitioner. Concisely, according to the petitioner, as no ground for setting aside the exparte award is made out at this belated stage, therefore, the indicated application was Civil Revision No.4439 of 2010 2 liable to be dismissed as time barred. 4. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Panipat accepted the application and set aside the exparte award, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/-, vide impugned order dated 27.4.2010. 5. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to me, there is no merit in the revision petition. 7. The main cosmetic argument of the learned counsel that since no ground for setting aside the exparte award is made out at the belated stage, so, the authority under the Act illegally accepted the application of the respondents in this regard, is not tenable. 8. As is evident from the record, the respondents have sought setting aside of the exparte award on the ground that the original claim petition was dismissed in default on 16.11.2007, thereafter no notice was issued to them and pendency of the case was not in their knowledge. There is no relationship of master and servant between the parties. No doubt, the Commissioner mentioned in the impugned order that there is no order on record dismissing the claim petition in default on 16.11.2007 and the exparte award was passed and he has only set aside the exparte award, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/-. 9. Be that as it may, it is not a matter of dispute that the impugned order is not happily worded and reasoned one, but it is based on substantial justice. The fact remains is that the Commissioner under the Act has only accepted the application of the respondents for setting aside the exparte award and allowed them to participate in the proceedings and nothing else. It is now well settled proposition of law that a party should be afforded adequate opportunity to contest such claim petition filed against them. Whether there was relationship of master Civil Revision No.4439 of 2010 3 and servant between the parties and whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, how much, would be moot points to be decided in the claim petition, which would naturally require the production of evidence. So, taking into consideration the nature of litigation between the parties, to my mind, as no cogent ground for interference in the impugned order based on substantial justice, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Since the matter is pending since long, so, the Commissioner is directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 20.7.2010 Judge AS