CMPMO No.495/2009 CMP No.609/2009 27.11.2009 Present: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. J. S. Rana, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1 Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5 In terms of the present petition filled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a public sector undertaking has assailed the impugned order dated 1.5.2006 passed at 2.15 P.M by the Commissioner Workmen, Mandi, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,. The claimants being poor illiterate persons coming from rural background had engaged the services of an advocate to pursue their matter before the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The claimants were claiming benefits due and payable to them by the petitioner. On 1.5.2006, even though the learned counsel for the original respondents (petitioner and respondent No. 6 herein) were present but however, none caused appearance on behalf of the claimants when the matter was taken up for hearing on three occasions. As such, at about 1.15 P.M. the claim petition was dismissed on the 3rd call. But however, in the post-lunch session, learned counsel for the claimants approached the Court and requested for restoration of the petition as he could not appear earlier in the pre-lunch session due to his personal engagement some where else. Accordingly, on the same day, at about 2.15 P.M. the petition was restored by the Court. It is this part of the order which has been assailed by the petitioner herein for the reason that -2- the petition ought not to have been restored without hearing them. It is correct that the Commissioner ought to have heard the petitioner herein before passing the impugned order but, however, Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate assisted by Mr. Vijay Dhir Saxena, Advocate has fairly stated that keeping in view the background in which the order was passed as also the financial condition of the claimants and the circumstances in which the claimants are placed, the petition be restored by an order of this Court. Accordingly, impugned order dated 1.5.2006 passed at 2.15 P.M. is set-aside but, however, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. vs Ram Tahel Ramnand & Ors, (1972)1 SCC 898 and Ramesh Chandra Sankla & Ors. vs Vikram Cement & Others, (2008) 14 SCC 58, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the claim petition is restored to its original position. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 29.12.2009. Considering the entire material on record as also the long standing dispute between the parties, the Commissioner is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date fixed for hearing. Record be sent back immediately. The petition is disposed of, so also the pending application. November 27, 2009 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.