IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16654 of 2008(G) -------------------------- WCC.93/2004 of W.C.C. & CONTRACT L.BOARD,TVM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------ PONNACHAN, KALAYIL HOUSE, PRAKKANAM P.O., CHENNERKKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMMISSIONER THYCADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR, AMBATTU HOUSE, ANGADIKKAL NORTH P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.16654 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P5 orders passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Thiruvananthapuram, in this writ petition. Ext.P2 is the gist of the order passed in W.C.C. No.93/04, whereby the petitioner herein being the employer of the 2nd respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.39,137/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of accident to the 2nd respondent as compensation for injury sustained by him during and in the course of employment with the petitioner. Ext.P5 is the order on the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order passed against the petitioner in that Workmen’s Compensation Case which led to Ext.P2. The petitioner submits that after the petitioner had received notice in the Workmen’s Compensation Case, he engaged an Advocate for conducting that case and only because he did not receive any information from his counsel that he did not appear before the Commissioner. He would submit that he W.P.(c)No.16654/08 2 knew about the orders passed only when he received Ext.P2 gist of the order on 17.7.07. Therefore, he filed Ext.P3 application along with a petition to condone the delay of 215 days to set aside the ex-part order, which was dismissed by Ext.P5 order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not inclined to put the 2nd respondent through travails of another protracted litigation on the averments of the petitioner in this writ petition. Admittedly the petitioner had received notice in the Workmen’s Compensation Case as early as in 2004. It is not believable that for a long period of three years the petitioner did not enquire about the case with his advocate. As such, the averment that the petitioner knew about the passing of the order only when he received Ext.P2 on 17.7.2007 does not appear to be true. Further admittedly, the petitioner received the gist of the order on 17.7.2007. But Ext.P4 application was filed only on 1.1.2008. The petitioner has not even offered any explanation for that delay in his affidavit filed before the Commissioner. As such, at every step of the case, the petitioner was at default. The petitioner may W.P.(c)No.16654/08 3 be able to afford a protracted litigation which the 2nd respondent cannot. Therefore, on these averments, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner to interfere with Exts.P2 and P5 orders especially in view of the fact that the amount awarded is only Rs.39,137/- with interest. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.16654/08 4