ii : -I-H -^^\ HI6H COWT OF CHHATTI56ARH AT BILASPUR M.A. 1337 of 2004 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.ft. Nayak, CJ & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raoscxheb beshmukh,J. Appellcnt Respondents South East Central Railwcy through the Divisionat Railway Mcmager, Sou'th East Central Railway, Bilaspur. Versus 1. Smt. Chandrika Bai, w/o late Ram Rdtan Lonkx, age 35 years. 2. Kumari Lalitha, b/o Late Ram ftatan, aged about 17 years, 3. Ram Narayan, S/o kite Ram Ratan, aged 15 years. 4. t>ev Narayan, S/o late Ram Ratan, aged about 13 years. 5. Oeep Naroyan S/o late Ram Ratan. dged cbout 11 years. 6. Kumari Durga, D/o late Ram Ratan, aged about 7 years. 7. Kumari Rajeshwari, t>/o kite Ram Ratan, aged about 2 yeoa's. 8. Ram nath, 5/o late Ram Ratnn, aged about4years. ! All minors represented through their mother - Smt. Chondrika Bai, wife of late Ram Ratan. 9. Shobharam Loniya, S/o Sankar Loniya, aged about 68 yedrs. | j 10. Smt. el bai; wife of Shobharoim Loniya, aged about 65 years. | AII R/o yillage: Nirath Kariiipai^t,! P.0. Shutku, Thesil; Takhatpur, Oistt: Bilaspur (C.6.) 11. Commissioner fdr Worknlen Compensation, Labour Court Bibq»ur. Shri Aneesh Pandey, Advocate cppearsfor -the appelhnt. None for 'the re^)ondents. l.lil-.i. 'v - z- ORAL OROER (Passed on 24th Januoiry, 2006) The following on»l order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK. C.J. In this Misceltaneous Appeal filed by the South Eost Central Railway, the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation dated 30 September 2004 cnd the order made by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation dated 16 December 2003 dismissing the opplication of the appellant fited under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC are assailed. 2. The facts are simple: On the demise of late Ram Ratan Loniya, Respondents No.l to 10 who are the legal representatives of the decea%d Ram Ratoin Loniya, filed an application before the Workmen Compensation for compensation on the ground that Ram Ratan Loniya died in the course of employment. On that application, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, having served notice on the administration of South Edst Central Railway, possed the impugned awrard granting compensation in favour of the respondents No.l to 10. When that award sought to be enforced against the appetlont, the appelkmt made an application under order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. for sett-ing aside the award da-ted 30 September 2004 on the ground that the award was passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation was without notice to it. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation having perused the record found that as a matter of fact, the notice was served on the appetlant. In that view of the matter, the Commissioner •for Workmen Comp&nsation by order dated 16 December 2003 dismissed the application filed under order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. 3. The appellcnt being aggrieved by the award dated 30.09.2004 and the order dated 16.12.2C03 possed by the Workmen Compensation has preferred this writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the cypellant. Even before us, the only contention urged by the leamed counsel for the appellant is that the notice was not duly served on the appellont by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation before the impugned award was passed. The learned counsel for the appellant did not seriousty dispute the fact that the finding recorded by the Commissioner for Worknnen Compensation in para 5 of the order dated 30.09.2004 made under order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is factually incorrect. If the appellont was served with the notice and the oppeltant did not moke use of that opportunity to contest the claim. it diould blame itself. In that view of the matter, there no ground is made out for us to correct the impugned award and order. There is no failure of justice. 5. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs. Sd/. CUef Justice Sdf- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge tA'^^n.t