// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4918/2008 Puna Ram S/o Shri Gokul Ram Panwar Versus Sohan Singh S/o Deva Ji and Others AND 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4908/2008 Puna Ram S/o Shri Gokul Ram Panwar Versus Smt. Sharda Devi W/o late Dula Ram and Others AND 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4913/2008 Puna Ram S/o Shri Gokul Ram Panwar Versus Smt. Jubaida W/o late Ahsan Katar & Others Date of Order ::: 09.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri B.L. Dhakar, Advocate, for Shri Virendra Agrawal, Counsel for non- claimant No.4/petitioner Puna Ram Shri Jai Prakash Gupta, Counsel for contesting respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri Jai Prakash Gupta, Advocate, appears for the contesting respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. All these three writ petitions involve similar question of law and the contesting // 2 // parties are also same, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. The claimants-respondents filed an application for compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Beawar. The matter was fixed for non-claimant's evidence. The non-claimants No.1 to 3 examined their witnesses, and those witnesses were also cross-examined by the claimants. The non- claimant No.4 Puna Ram (petitioner herein) filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to allow him to cross-examine the witnesses of non-claimants No.1 to 3. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner rejected the said application vide order dated 11th March, 2008. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of the non-claimant No.4/petitioner Puna Ram. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the non-claimants No.1 to 3, in their reply to the claim petition, pleaded that the non-claimant No.4/petitioner is responsible for payment of compensation, // 3 // therefore, it is necessary to cross-examine the witnesses of the non-claimants No.1 to 3 and the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner committed an illegality in rejecting his application to cross-examine them. The learned counsel for the non- claimants No.1 to 3/respondents defended the impugned order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and, in alternative, submitted that in case this court allows the non-claimant No.4/petitioner to cross-examine their witnesses then they may also be given an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses of the non-claimant No.4/petitioner. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for rejecting the application filed on behalf of the non- applicant No.4/petitioner and also the other documents annexed with the writ petition. The case of the non-claimants No.1 to 3, in their reply to the claim petition, was that the deceased was an employee of non- claimant No.4, who was their Contractor, // 4 // whereas the case of the non-claimant No.4, in his reply to the claim petition, was that he was not their contractor and deceased was the employee of non-claimants No.1 to 3. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I think it fit and proper that ends of justice will meet in case the non-claimant No.4/petitioner and non-claimants No.1 to 3/respondents both are allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of each other. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 11th March, 2008 passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is set-aside. The application filed by the petitioner is allowed and he is permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the non-claimants No.1 to 3. A liberty is also granted to the non- claimants No.1 to 3 to cross-examine the witnesses of non-claimant No.4 as and when they are examined. The learned counsel for the non- claimants No.1 to 3 submits that their witnesses will be produced before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on the next date for their cross-examination by the // 5 // non-claimant No.4. The non-claimant No.4/petitioner is directed to cross-examine them on the next date positively. No order as to costs. Since three writ petitions have been disposed of by this common order, the Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in other two connected writ petitions. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//