IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25.06.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.1171 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.2 & 1 2010 Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre, rep. by its Secretary and Organiser Mrs.Rani Krishnan, 34, East Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Office of Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Tambaram, Chennai -45 3.T.Elumalai ...Respondents Prayer : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent order made in WC.1A126-09 & 127-09 in W.C.No.114/1999 dated 30th November 2009 and to quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.N.Maninarayanan and Mr.T.Dhanasekaran For Respondents :Mr.R.G.Annamalai for R3 Mr.B.Vijay Govt. Advocate for RR1-2 ******* https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent in WC.1A126-09 & 127-09 in W.C.No.114/1999 dated 30th November 2009. 3. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows:- The third respondent herein filed the claim petition before the first respondent under Section 10(1) and (1A) of the Workman Compensation Act. It was stated that the third respondent was working as the painter in the building owned by the opposite party and was receiving a sum of Rs.130/- as daily wages. The opposite party in the claim petition was Karpakkam Anadhai Illam, Old Mahapalipuram Road, Karapakkam, Chennai – 96. The third respondent stated that on 12.11.1998, at about 12.00 Noon, while he was doing painting work in the building belonging to the opposite party, he had fallen down and one Raniammal, who was in charge of the administration, took the third respondent to private doctor at Thiruvanmiyur and after administering treatment, took away the medical records, in which treatment given to the third respondent was recorded. The third respondent subsequently took treatment at Government Royapettah Hospital and also took treatment at Puthur bone setting Hospital. At the time of accident, he was aged about 58 years and on account of the accident, he has suffered disability. The third respondent sent a legal notice dated 09.12.1998 to the opposite party to settle the claim or return the medical records and inspite of the receipts of the legal notice, the opposite party did not respond. On the above facts, the third respondent prayed for an award of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation with interest from the date of accident. 4. The case was taken up for adjudication by the first respondent and since the opposite party failed to appear, they were set exparte on 23.11.1999, and the matter was taken up for final hearing on 17.12.1999. The third respondent examined himself as AW-I and marked Exhibits A1 to A5. The first respondent by award dated 24.01.2000 computed the compensation at Rs.59,856/- and the opposite party was directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest at 12% per annum shall be recovered. After the award was passed, the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, by notice dated 21.08.2003, called upon the writ petitioner to pay the compensation amount awarded and in the said notice, it was stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioner has wrongly stated that the opposite party is Karapakkam Anadhai Illam, but it is infact the petitioner herein and run by Tmt.Rani Krishnan. Subsequently, the first respondent herein by proceedings dated 15.11.2006, address to the Secretary of the petitioner centre, which is existing as on date and called as Karapakkam Anadhai Illam issued a show cause notice as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act having failed to deposit the compensation awarded in W.C. Case No.114 of 2009. In response to said communication, the petitioner sent a reply on 27.11.2006, contending that the petitioner is not Karapakkam Anadhai Illam, but it is Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre and they are not bound to pay the award amount. Request was also made to contest the proceedings to enable the petitioner to represent the matter before the first respondent. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.27757/2007, challenging the recovery notice dated 15.11.2006, issued by the first respondent and to forbear them taking any cohesive steps. The matter was hotly contested between the petitioner and the third respondent and this Court by order dated 19.08.2008, dismissed the writ petition, as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.126 & 127/2009, before the first respondent for condoning the delay of 2812 days in filing the petition to set aside the award in W.C. case No.114/1999 and to set aside the exparte award. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it was stated that at no point of time, the petitioner institution is called as Karapakkam Anadhai Illam and it is a registered body under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the petitioner centre is not Karapakkam Anadhai Illam and at no point of time the institution engaged or appointed the third respondent. The first respondent took up the I.A.No.126 & 127/2009 for hearing and after considering the facts framed the following questions to be decided:- "Whether the petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte award in W.C. case No.114/1999 dated 24.01.2000 and whether the delay of 2812 days in filing such application is admissible." The first respondent after considering the affidavits and counter affidavits and the oral submissions rendered the following factual finding:- "Mdhy; ,e;j fhug;ghf;fk; mdhij ,y;yk; vd;w bgahpy; jhd; tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L ,e;j kDjhuh;-vjph;kDjhuUf;F ,nj bgahpy; jhd; tHf;fpy; mDg;gg;gl;l mwptpg;g[fs; bgwg;gl;Ls;sd/ nkYk; ,e;j tHf;fpy; tH';fg;gl;Ls;s Miza[k; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpypUe;J gjpt[ jghy; K:yk; ,nj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fhug;ghf;fk; mdhij ,y;yj;jpw;F 24/04/2000y; mDg;gg;gl;L 27/4/2000y; kDjhuh;-vjph;kDjhuuhy; Miza[k; bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ/ bjhlh;e;J ,Hg;gPl;Lj; bjhif brYj;jg;glhjjhy; K:ykDtpy; vjph;kDjhuuhy; ,Hg;gPl;Lj; bjhif brYj;j jtwpaikf;fhf tUtha; tR{y; rl;lj;jpd; tR{y; bra;jpl chpa eltof;iff;fhf K:ykDtpd; kDjhuuhy; j';fsJ 14/11/2006 njjpapl;l fojj;jpy; vjph;kDjhuh; epWtdj;jpd; bgah; md;idghj;jpkh iry;L bty;ngh; brd;lh; vd miHf;fg;gLtjhf bjphptpj;Js;sjpd; mog;gilapy; 15/11/2006y; ,e;j g[jpa bgauhd md;id ghj;jpkh iry;L bty;ngh; brd;lh; 98. giHa kfhgypg[uk; nuhL. fhug;ghf;fk;. brd;id/96 vd;w tpyhrj;jpw;F tpsf;fk; nfl;Fk; mwptpg;g [ tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ mjida[k; ,e;epWtdk; bgw;Ws;sdh;/ ,e;j epWtdk; tH';fg;gl;l ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jhy; tH';fg;gl;l Miz KiwahdJ my;y vd fUjpapUg;gpd; mJ Fwpj;J vt;tpj eltof;ifa[k; vLf;ftpy;iy. Vdnt , e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; 24/4/2000 njjpapl;l Mizia 27/4/2000y; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Lk; 6tUl fhykhf xUjiygl;r Miz vd bjhpe;jpUe;Jk; ve;j eltof;iff;Fk; cl;gLj;jhky; 15/11/2006y; tUtha; tR{y; rl;lj;jpd; fPH; eltof;iff;F vjph;kDjhuh; epWtdj;ij cl;gLj;jg;gl;lt[ld; kPz;Lk; 6khj';fs; jhkjk; bra;J 21/6/2007 njjpapl;l fojj;jpy; bgah; khw;wk; Fwpj;J Ml;nrgid jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh;/ ,e;j epiyapYk; ,e;ePjpkd;w xUjiygl;r Mizia ePf;fut [ bra;a ve;jtpj eltof;ifa[k; vLf;fg;gltpy;iy/" 6. Thus on a perusal of the above findings, it is clear that the notice, which was sent by the first respondent, after the claim petition was filed was sent to the same address on 24.04.2000 and acknowledged by the writ petitioner on 27.04.2000. Further, the first respondent recorded the factual finding that no steps were taken, despite receipt of the notice from the first respondent. Further, it has been stated that only on 14.11.2006, the new name of Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre was intimated and accordingly, notice was sent to the said address in the name of the writ petitioner. Thus, the first respondent came to a conclusion that there is no reasonable explanation on the part of the writ petitioner for having not approached the Court earlier and there are no grounds to condone the delay or set aside the exparte order. Further, it has been observed that the third respondent is a daily wage coolie and is not fully conversant with the correct name of the institution and the address of the institution has been mentioned correctly in the main application. Therefore, the first respondent by order dated 30.11.2009 concluded that despite opportunity being granted to the petitioner, they did not chose to avail the same and therefore no indulgence is required to be shown and accordingly, dismissed both the applications. This order dated 30.11.2009 is impugned in this Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the the award passed by the first respondent is an exparte award and it is the nature of the decree and such decree cannot be executed against a person, who has not been impleaded as a respondent in W.C. Case No. 114/1999. Further, it is contended that the first respondent erred in holding that there was change of name from Karapakkam Anadhai Illam to Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre and service of notice under the name of Karapakkam Anadhai Illam would not be valid service. That the petitioner is a registered society and it bears the name of Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre from February 1983. Therefore, it is contended that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, after controverting the factual allegations made by the writ petitioner, it is submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the first respondent, the only remedy available is under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. It is further contended that the petitioner has been contesting the matter only on technicalities and has not contested the matter on its merits. It is further contended that notice in the workmen compensation petition was served on four dates on the petitioner in the address given in the petition and though acknowledged, no steps were taken to appear before the authority and contest the matter, since the petitioner failed to appear inspite of receipt of notice, the exparte award was passed. It is further submitted that the third respondent is aged about 71 years and is unable to do any work from 1998, when he suffered the injury and there are absolute no merits in the writ petition. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. Though elaborate submissions on factual issues have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, the issue involved in the present case lies in a very narrow campus. The contention raised by the writ petitioner is that the respondent/opposite party in W.C. case No.114/1999 is not the writ petitioner and therefore the exparte award has to be set aside. In support of such contention, the learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the certificate of registration issued by the District Registrar, Madras South, registering the petitioner's society and contend that the award is the nature of a decree and the petitioner not being a party to the proceedings cannot be compelled to comply with the decree. In other words, it is contended that the decree is unenforceable against the writ petitioner. At the first blush, the argument advanced by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be attractive, but on perusal of the facts, the same requires to be rejected. At this juncture, it is to be borne in mind that the matter does not arise out of a civil proceedings but it is a claim made under the Workmen Compensation Act, which is a labour welfare legislation. Undoubtedly, the first respondent being the competent authority under the Act has been given full adjudicatory powers to adjudicate the claim of the workmen. The petitioner feigns ignorance of the entire matter and on that ground contends that the exparte award is liable to be set aside. On perusal of the factual details, which have been recorded by the first respondent, (as extracted above in Tamil) it is not in dispute that notices in W.C. case No.114/1999 was sent to the address at 98, Old Mahapalipuram Road, Karapakkam, Chennai – 96. These notices, which were sent by the first respondent were acknowledged. Further in the petition in W.C. case No.114/1999, the third respondent has made a specific plea that after the third respondent sustained injury on 12.11.1999, one Raniammal, who was the administrator, took him to a private hospital at Thiruvanmiyur for treatment. The deponent to the affidavit in the writ petition is one Tmt. Rani Krishnan, who is the Secretary and Organizer of the Society. In page 14 of the typed set filed by the writ petitioner, a letter written by the writ petitioner to the first respondent has been enclosed. The letterhead states that Mrs. Rani Krishnan is a Social Worker, Secretary and Organizer of Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre and Annai Illam and the address of the home for children has been given as 48, Old Mahapalipuram Road, Karapakkam Village, Chennai -96 and the office & Old Age Home, address has been given as 34, East Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai -4, the writ petition has been filed by giving the office address. Therefore, it is evident that there is a home for handicapped children run by this organisation at Old Mahapalipuram Road, Karapakkam Village, Chennai. Admittedly, the third respondent is low paid daily wage earner and with the available information, he has laid a claim against the society, praying for compensation. The address of the opposite party in W.C. case No.114/1999 has been correctly mentioned and it is stated that four notices sent by the first respondent has been served in the said address coupled with the averment that it is the deponent to the affidavit, Raniammal, who had taken the third respondent for treatment after the accident. 11. In such circumstances, this Court would not convert itself into an Appellate Forum to reappreciate the factual finding recorded by the first respondent and re-appreciate the evidence on record and come to a different conclusion than what was arrived at by the fact finding authority. 12. Therefore, that this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to settle the compensation award to the third respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. pbn Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Office of Commissioner of Labour, D.M.S. Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Tambaram, Chennai -45 + 1 cc to Mr. N.Mani, Advocate SR No.45532 + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.46147 + 2 ccs to Mr. R.G. Annamalai, Advocate SR No.45443 DM(CO) SR/1.7.2010 Order in W.P.No.1171 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/