WP/4310/2007 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4310 OF 2007 M/s.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Gurnam Singh Sardar Singh & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Yash Bhargavan i/b R.Bhargavan & Associates for Petitioner None for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 31, 2011 P.C.: 1. The Petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation on 21.4.2007. By this order, the Commissioner has refused to set aside the order directing that the proceedings would be heard ex-parte. 2. Although Respondent No.1 has been served, he has chosen not to appear before this Court. Hence, the petition is being heard in his absence. 3. The applicant i.e. Respondent No.1 filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Thane claiming compensation on account of an accident that he suffered while on duty. It appears that a summons was issued on 29.9.2006 to the petitioner. However, since it was received at the WP/4310/2007 : 2 : Main Office, it was not accepted and the bailiff was informed that the summons should be sent to the Thane office. A fresh summons was issued and served on the Petitioner on 28.11.2006. According to the petitioner, it was not able to attend the matter at Thane after the summons was served in its Churchgate office. It is contended that there was a heavy workload because of the year ending and the summons was misplaced. It was traced much later and an application was made to the Commissioner to permit the petitioner to file a written statement. That application has been rejected by the Commissioner and he has refused to recall his order fixing the proceedings for an ex-parte hearing. 4. In my view, the Commissioner has erred in refusing to set aside the order directing that the proceedings would be heard ex-parte. The Commissioner has ample power to recall such an order and to accept the written statement. In the interest of justice the Commissioner ought to have allowed the application of the Petitioner subject to payment of costs as there were sufficient reasons for setting aside the order. However, the Commissioner has chosen not to do so. Mr.Bhargavan, appearing for the petitioner, states that the application is still pending today before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Thane. 5. In these circumstances, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation shall accept the written statement of the petitioner on condition that the petitioner pays to the respondent workman Rs.5,000/- within two weeks from today. 6. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.