¢ (Y We IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETITION NO74‘Z2004 / PETITIONER Non Applicant Harpal Singh Bhatia, s/o. Shri Rawel Singh Bhatia (wrongly mentioned as Hardayal Singh ‘ Bhatia before the court below), aged about 43 years, R/o Lal Bagh v Housing Board Colony, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) Dist. Rajnandgaon g‘» VERSUS u H . RESPONDENTS Smt. Shahnaz Parveen, Widow of (No. 1—7 APPLICANTS) late Aziz Khan, aged about 35 years; . Avesh Khan, s/o late Aziz Khan, aged about 11 years; Ku. Nigahat d/o late Aziz Khan, aged about 10 years; . Ku. Nusarat d/o late Aziz Khan, aged about 9 years; . Sohail Khan s/o late Aziz Khan, aged about 8 years; . Suhaib Khan s/o late Aziz Khan, aged about 8 years; . Smt. Sugra Bi widOW of late Rahman Khan, aged about 52 years; Jk ~Respondehts $§No. 2 to 6 minors through their guardian 8L mother Smt. Shahnaz Parveenwidow ofolate Aziz Khan as theirnext friem'élvggw —All Respondents No. l-i‘to ,7’Res1 of C/o Bashir Khan R/o Rahul " N i Lakholi, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil 85 Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 8. The Commissioner, For Workmen§§vCompensatiom g \ Labour Court, Durg (C.G.) ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226(227 OF THE > CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE"OF WRITIWRITS, ORDER ORDERS OR AND DIRECTION DIRECTIONS IN THE «b» NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI OR OF ANY OTHER i APPROPRIATE NATURE. ha I 5hr} 52?.5. Bha‘ria; counée! for The pefh‘ioner. Shri Sanfosh Vadu, couni}ei for rgspahdems No.1 f0 7. has beam reje'cfed. Brief fam‘s, gs men‘ricn m The impugned order, ieadmg To fmng m: 3"his writ pz‘m‘icm are T’m‘f Q' ceased Aziz Khcm, Son of Rahmun Khcm was working as driver in fhe T anspcrT’ company of ihe peféfiomr. On 20% February 2000, ‘rhe d' used was driver of i'rruck baring ragisi’ra'?iori No.fV\iP.24—CXO907 and/0n Tha‘l' day he iook fhe said Wuck . from Qajnomdgaon f0 8emeTara On #he way he sfopped The Truck naar oid pond [Jum'miam Nayapara‘ Beme‘iara and whey) ha wem‘ To Taka ’rhe ba'ih, ha digd on accoum‘ ef drovming in fhe pand. A deafh case No‘5/2000 wa$ regis‘fared m‘ Ti e Poiicz S‘mTSon Bernei‘am‘ Further case of 'H’ie \Agid w of deceased 5%ziz Khan was Thai" he was cirawing Rs.2(OOO/-iper moi 'i-h as saiary and iisEOG/zper monf’n as The pa?i?§<mer has pref wed ?his wrH’ pefifian ques+ioning The iagalify, proprie‘iy and corre ffnes3 of The order da’rzd 29-1-2003 passed iri Case No.17/O2W.€.Ac’r/Fa'ml/02 by The Commis'sioaer w J \ Wcrkmenis Compensai'icn’ Du g and aEsa quesfioning The legafify, I propriew and correC‘mess of "ha order dwed' 5*2-2§04 whemby The 'g appiicmian of fhe pa?§‘rioner fiied unéer Order 9 Ruie 13 of ?he C.P.C. l a I e XI~HC~22 mm ‘NPMéf’kq‘gi’ aéEo m mew mm WWW Wnm mm %a1%£r3n%$f 13-6~ZGO5 compmy 0f The pe‘n'honer herew as driver and af The Time of The incadew he was aged abouf 40 years aim he was earnmg marifhly salary of Rs.2,000/-. 5m and nar c Hdren ware dependem" ca her husbcmd Whm her Husband wen? “f0 Te ch wa‘ar 1e {ed m The pomi and cued Ex.—?/2 :s me drivmg heeace Omar Wtmess namaly Hussain Khan cGsa ‘ supporTed The ewdemw of mas cmdem‘ No 1 Reiymg on “Me evidance m‘ above TWO w’messes The Co mtsgioner for Workmeris CompemsaTIon was m XI—HC—22 Harman, Wm, W Q??? Wm m 200 W mam WW ain'mW mmm ’QF mmTfa‘TW gwwfétx'anam TraveMng ailowance and deamess aHowance. A !egal noTice was senT by The advocaTe of re$pmdenT Nc .1 on 1-4—2000 claiming compensaTign of Rs.2,46,325/- under The Worklmen's CompensaTiGn AcT, as The case of respondenT No.1 was ThaT Azi Khan died while in The empioymenT cf The pETiTioner Wnen The amo nT was he”? paid The maTTer was fHed under The Workmen Compens Tion ACT m The CaurT of Commisswher Tm" Wonkmens CompensaTxon abour CourT Durg ahd as per The arder daTed 29 1 2093 passed b 1e Commxesioner Tor Workmens Compensa’non nonce of The p Tmon was senT To The pe ITioner, even of The fiied nor he afTer receipT same ho eply was by ne pehhoner pre<enTed himseTC beTor’e The ommssmner There; ore Tne maTTer wag ordered a0 be proceeded ex— orTe againsr he peTiTkorIer nerem and evidence of respondenT N01 as recorded Respondenf No1 in he?“ Xi—HC-ZZ mas? 961T ’nh W aHowed fhe peTh‘ion and pa5§ec +ha award of Rs.1,84J70/— againsf The pefi‘rioner herein. ‘é‘he pefi’rioner herein maved cm appiica‘rion under Order 9 Rule 13 of 'rhe C.P.C. for sewing asice The ex-pam‘e award dm‘ed 29-1—2003. However, 'i‘he $aid appiicm’icn Was rejem‘ed by “i“he Commissioner vide v order dafed 54—2004 on fhe ground fha‘i’ deceased Azéz Khan was ciriver in the Transpor’r comgam' of fhe pe‘rifioner $ince 1988 and on ihe faieful day Le. 20*h February ZOQO he was driving The fruck bearing - regisfra’fion No.M.P.24~C/0907, Therefore, he was employee of ‘ihe peii‘rioner herein and a mfce was sen‘r 4m The pe‘ii'é’ioner and acmowedgemenf !. E of 'ihe same wag ai'mc'ned wi‘ih The main case, Therefore, The Commissioner while considering The service sufficienT i i on 14—5-2002 proceeded ewparTe againsT The peTiTioner. On These "facTs The Commissioner cans dered The service on The peTiTioner sufficiem‘ and rejecTed The applicaTion. E have heard learhecl cau asel for The parTies. Learned courisel for The peTiTioner argued in The firsT insTance ThaT The peTiTioner was noT reigisTered owner of The Truck in quesTion whereas, his broTher Devencer 5ingh was The regisTered owner. Moreover, in The noTice, The nc me of The faTher‘ of The peTiTioner was wrongly menTioned as Hardayal Singh whereas, The peTiTioner's faTher’s l I Xi—HC—22 mam name is Sardar RavaH Singh. undersfand Thu? The procaeding was no? employee of The peTifio 5-2-2004 and 29-1—2003 are illegal and perverse. On ‘Hqe ofher hand, learn: ‘a‘he impugned order-s of fhe Cor: are §egai gnd same are based c Regisfered owner of fhe fruck pefi'kioner are reu} broi‘hers, reg§sfeved ih ‘rhe hame 3f The ; peTi‘i‘iqner was no? emphyer. B‘ Devender Singh are members quesfiori was piyihg under The employer of laTe Aziz Khan, as iT is clear from The impugned order ThaT zrved on The peTiTioner buT he failed To ier, Therefore, The proceedings were oinsT The peTiTioner. In This connecTion, employer has been defined in SecTion 2 f{1) (e) ii emp/oyer” includes any body noTice of origimi pe‘rmon was s‘ appear- before The Commissior direc’red f0 proceed ex'parTe a9 Therefore; The peTiTioner could hoT is pending againeT him, as The cieceased fier, as such The impugned orders daTed ad counsei “for reepondenfs argued ThaT i imissioner for Workmen’s CompensaTion n The evidence and facTs of The case. i i in quesTion i.e. Devender Singh and The ”herefore, even if The Truck was noT )eTiTioher ThaT does noT mean ThaT The )Th The breThers i.e. The peTiTiOher and of The jcinT family ahd The Truck in conTroi of The pe’riTioner who was The m I l of The AcT of 1923 which envisages ThaT ofpersons wher/qer incarpomfeo’ or no? and any mamq/‘nq aqem‘ of an eirwioyer’ and file I’egaf represanfaM/e of a, defensea’empfayer, ciao: peTiTioner was fhe empieyer of deceased Aziz Khan as per Sec’rion 2 (i) (e) of ihe Workmen's Comgens Tion Act i923. Ano‘iher question raised by learned counsei for “ihe pe'ii‘ficmer is “iha'f fhe ‘fa’rher's name of "he peiiiioner: in ihe nofice and The proceeding was men‘rioned inco rec’riy. Bu‘i in my opinion, on This coun'r aise The pe‘rifioner is no? emi‘ri d in fake advan‘iage of The simaiion as in The noiice facTs were menii ned and goased on Those faci‘s and frock i i S. ‘gxu l XI—HC—22 3a W, WW W WW a1 200 ........ . ....... . ...............m ............................. mmuf%a __ - Wam§mw hafmw when fhe services of a workmaW are femgomri/y /em” or laf on hire 3‘0 , é § § , ma#xer pgrs‘m by fha person M717 whom 7%a workman #575 anfgred m 7‘0 a com ac; of service 0/4 apprer’ficgsh;b/ means such oh‘lerpers'oiq wfif/e .fhe workmm is workmg for halm.’ Therefore, as per The above defmrnon of employer fhz em ioyer mcludzs any managing agam' of an fh empioyer *rher‘efore even if fh 'h’uck m quesTiim was n9? ragls‘i'arec m i'he name\of ‘Hqe peimonen fhte pe’n‘honer ts The rea} bra'rher‘ of ‘rhe ragiS'rered ommer' Davender ingh. ‘ Regponden“? No.1, wife of The Lieceased, has cafegor'icaliy lmf‘ed in her s‘ra'remen'r befare “me ‘2 Commissioner for Workmen’s Compemsm‘ion fhm‘ her husbwd was and she has wcrkmg as dmver m The Wansp company of Hurpal Smgh no? heen cross—examined 0h This counT and ner above ewdehce remained un—rebu‘H'ed. As such‘ in View of The ahave evidence and facts of The case, ‘rhe XLHC—ZZ EW,W“W{Hm mam: WW.... m zoo mm WW§WW ésmaém WEI-WWW ~€,. mm‘aer Tha pe‘rifiangr was smart? 'rhaf ‘i‘he maTTer germins fo Aziz Khan and hueh fruck, ’rherefore, he Had a sufficien? nofice Tha? fhe ma'Her per‘mins "fo fheir Transpar? co mpany, as such he could no? “rake any advan’fage ‘fha‘r he was no? informed and was nof aware abouT The facfs of fhe pen‘i‘fion. :ven offer r cewmg fhe nohce he couid no? have understood fhe si‘ruo’rion ‘rho? 1' e mo‘ri‘er is pending againsf him. Now commg To The ques Ion Thu? A212 Khan died on accoum of orownmg m The pond 'rherefor in “'me course of ihe empioymen In fhis connec’rion also Sec’rion 3 (1) of Chepfer II of The ACT enws ges ThoT Ifpersana/ [my/"y 15‘ caused fa a workman by ace/dam“ was! g om‘ 0f and m fke course of his employmem‘ his employer sh // be lrabfe r0 pay compensafxon In accordance wn‘h #1e prowsmn of fins Chapfer Oniy excepf fhe siTuaTion provided in proviso To ub~secTion \1) of 5ecilon 3 ThoT if any workmen received injury and 1 in The course of The employment Then his neirs are enTiTied for he compensahon In The presen’r case is admi’r’red posmon ThoT on he iaTefui day and Time ioTe Pu: Khan was crmng The Truck of The p Tmoners TransporT company one when his Truck reached near oid pond of Naycpora BemeTam he sTopped The uck ohci weni To The/pom! vmere he diee on occounT of drowning Therefore iaTe fiZiz Khan died uring The course of The empioymenT it cannoi‘ .oe con51dered fho‘r he died XI-HC-22 \ ‘ going recsonsi l am of The opinion Thai fhe proceedings were direc‘ied To be proceeded ex-par'ie agairisf The pe‘iifioner on his failure To appear before fhe Commissioner and prior i’o fha‘r even noTice was issued Therefore; for The forei 'i‘o him by counsel for respondem No.1, even on meri‘r also “Hoe pefi‘rioner has no? been able To make ou‘r a case for in‘l’erference by ‘il’iis Cour‘i, as such I do no? find any illegali‘ry or infirmify in The impugned orderls. The pe‘rifion is liable ”robe dismissed and i’r is accordingly dismissed. Consequen’rly, M.(W.)P. i\o.659/2004 and I.A.No.1910/2005 also S‘lond disposed of. Sd/— L.C.BHADOO Judge