)f-\^/- r^>\ IN OF AT W.P. (Cl N0. ^ PETiTSGNER .^'"^ v<?y^ ^^y' ,f^/" '^^' < Smt. Sunita Agrawa!, W/o. Kanhaiyalai Agrawai, 37 Fulchur, Gondia, 1] Mahendra Kumar S/o-. Dasharam Pawar, about 33 years, R7o. Fulchur, Viliage, Post, Tahsll and DjstriGt Gondia-, ^y ^^y ^^ '^ .-^^ 1;^* I .t? i-s^ 21 Offlcer, National Insurance Company LJmited, Gondla, Village, Post, Poiice -Station, Tahsli and Distric? Through: Office, Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Llne, Rajnandgaon, and Rajnandgaon ^_f€^~^ n«<^ / .^, ^ 3] Commjssioner, Workmen's Compensation, '^^^^^^ Rajnandgaon, Dlstrict Rajnandgaon 227 OF THE OF ^^ I fi-.i.-:^ 1 i' l'^-^11 ^ HIGHCQmiTOFCHHATTISGARH:BIIA8PUR S.B. : HON»BLBSHRI MAMNDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. PBTITIONBR RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (Cl No.70/2007 Smt. Simita Agrawal Versiis Mahendra Kumar & Ors. Petition u/Article 227 ofthe Constltutton oflndia Appearance: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents, ttiough served. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 18.02.2011) Heard. 2. This petition is directed against order dated 30th March, 2006 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Rajnandgaon in Misc. Case No.47/W.C. Act/2005, by which petitioner's application for setting aside ex-parte award dated 218t April, 2005 has been rejected. 3. Brief facts necessaiy for adjudication of controversy involved tn this petition are ftiat respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for grant of compensation, on the pleading that he sustained mjuries wlule working as driver of the vehicle owned by fhe petitioner. After the /€^\ -2- ^ .^ application was filed, fhe Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, proceeded with the matter and issued notices to fhe respondent therein. Later on, after recording that fhe petitioner has failed to appear and contest in spite of service of notice, he proceeded to pass award dated 21st April, 2005 against the petitioner and the Insurance Coinpany. In so far as penalty is concemed, under the award, the petitioner was held liable for payment of ttie same. The petitioner, having come to know of the ex-parte award against him, moved an application for setting aside ex-parte award by stating specific grounds. The said application has been rejected by ftie impugned order, against which, this petition has been filed. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, assailtng the correctn^ss and validity of the order under challenge, submitted that in the application for setting aside ex-parte award, the petitioner had raised substantial grounds including a specifiLC ground fhat he was never served wifh copy of notice nor refused to take fhe notice issued by fhe Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. In the application, it has also been stated fhat in order to get compensation, on fabricated case, without notice being served upon the petitioner, fhe award was passed, making him liable for payment of huge amount of penalty. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the leamed Commissioner, ignorir^ fhe specific avennent made by the petitioner in his application which was duly supported by an affidavit and without giving him an i. ^ te.^ l.^ Jf -3- t,0 -^^" / iMi; opportunity to lead the oral evidence to establish that notice was never served upon him, proceeded to passed fhe impugned order. 5. In fhe impugned order, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, recording that the notice was earlier sent by re^stered post and there is an endorsement of the petitioner having refused to take the notice, proceeded to reject ttie application, holding fhat fhe petitioner was rightiy proceeded ex- parte. 6. In a case where appMcation for setting aside ex-pcate award is made on specific allegations fhat the notices were never served and fhe endorsement regarding refusal of notice are incorrect, unless the applicant himself is not wUIing, the Court should aUow the party to lead oral evidence to substantiate fhe allegation. Consideration the nature of pleading which were made ty fhe petitioner in his application for setting aside ex-pcirte award, fhe iriterest of justice demanded that the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation should have allowed fhe pedtioner to lead appropriate oral evidence before rcjecting his case. This has not been done. Ttierefore, in the opinion of this Court, fhe order does not appear to be just and proper. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2006 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Rajnandgaon, rejecting the petitioner's application for setting aside ^c-parte award, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to fhe \:!:y' ,^" -4- ^\ Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Rajnandgaon, for proper consideration of petitioner's application after allowing the petitioner and ofher parties,an opportunity to lead oral evidence. 8. Petition is accordingly allowed. SdA Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Pr&veen