w.^^. '^"^^f': ^F^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 898 of 2004 Petitioner Uttamchaad Jaisawal, S/o Madhav Sao, aged about 50 years, R/o Near PoUce Liae, Post & Nagar & Thaaa Anibikapur, Distiict Surguja (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. The Commissiouer, Workiaen Conipensation Labour Court, Anibikapur 2, Smt, Laxmi Devi, W/o Omprakash Siagh, aged about 40 years/ R/o Basadeyee, Post Basadeye, P.S, Surajpur, Distdct Surguja 3. TahsUdar (Revenue), Anibikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotori J.) Shri Maaoj Paraiijpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashaak Thakur, Paael Lawyer for fhe respondents No. 1 and3. Shri Ashok Kuniai' Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on this 7th day ofMay, 2009) The petitioner unpugns the order dated 28.2.2004 (Annexure P/3), passed by fhe Commissiouer, Worknien Conipensation, Ambikapur in Case No. 14/2003 W.C.Act (Misc.), whereby the appUcation filed by fhe petitioner uuder Sectiou 41 of fhe Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 read wifh Order 9 Rule 13 offhe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) for settmg aside of fhe ex-parte award dated 25.2.2003 (Annexure P/l), has been rejected. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 fUed aa application for grant of compensation \ -. \!' v' •^! '"^ r>--»^o. 'i,,,"^ ^' •% 3. under fhe provisions of Workinen Coiapensatiou Act, 1923, which was allowed vide award dated 25.2.2003 (Annexure P/1), holdiag that Uie petitiouer is Mable to pay a conipensation ofRs. 66,300/- witfa iatercst at the rate of 12% p,a. from fhe date of fhe award. Thereafter, fhe petitioner received a notice dated 22.4.2003 froia fhe executing Court. As ftie petitioner was not havuig aay knowledge about fhe proceediags pendiag against him, he inoved aa application under Section 41 of fhe Workinen Coinpensation Act, 1923 read with Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. (Aimexure P/2) for setting aside of fhe ex-parte award dated 25.2,2003 on fhe ground fhat fhe registered notice dated 13.11.2002 was not served ou the petitioner. By impugned order dated 28.2.2004 (Annexure P/3) the appUcation filed by fhe petitioner was rejected, Hence fhis petition. Learaed counsel further submits fhat in fact fhe registered notice dated 13.11.2002 was not received by tlie petitioner, The signature on flie acknowledgement was not of the petitioner. It appears fhat soineone else has signed and took the notice. To substaatiate his subnussion, leanied counsel reUes on a decision of fhis Cozut ia W.P.No. 6914/2006 (Sinaru Jaiswal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers), whereia, ia tiie sunilar facts aad circunistaaces, it was held fhat the inipugned order was passed by the authority wifhout conductmg aay enquiry, fherefore, fhe order was ex-facie illegal aad the sarae was liable to be quashed. 9^. ^-•l^ .'-Q s; ^^?-^-~s*€-'-^' Learaed counsel appeadng for the respondent No.2 supports fhe irapugned order and subndts fhat fhe registered notice was received by tlie petitioner and as such no enquiry was necessary, Haviag heard learaed counsel appearing for fhe parties aiid having perused fhe pleadings aad docunients appended thereto, it appeai's fbat the aufhority below has not conducted proper enquiry to ascertaia the facts of serurice of fhe notice in the maia matter upon fhe petitioner. In view offhe foregoiag, fhe impugned order dated 28.2.2004 (Annexure P/3) is quashed. The aufhority below is directed to consider aad decide fhe appUcation filed by fhe petitioner under Section 41 of the Workmen Conipensation Act 1923 read wifh Order 9 Rule 13 offhe C.P.C., atresh, ia accordance with law, aller conducting necessary enquuy io.to fhe fact, whefher tlie notice was served on fhe petitioner or not and to pass order wifhia a period of one inontii frora. the date of receipt ofacopy oftiiis order. The petition is aUowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri