IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 231 of 2011(O) ------------------------ WC.118/2005 OF COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER) KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER : ------------------- KUNHI MOHAMMED.K., KANNATH HOUSE, KILINAKODE, CHEROOR, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.BALAN, S/O.VASU, KARAKATTIL HOUSE, PADICHIRA.P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD 673579. 2. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PANDI AUTOMOBILES BUILDING, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM 676505. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- O.P.(Civil) No.231 of 2011 O --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The first respondent filed W.C.No.118 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kozhikode, under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The first respondent contended that he was employed as a mahout by the petitioner. While the first respondent was going with the elephant, the elephant attacked him. He sustained injuries. He was in the hospital for quite sometime. He claimed compensation. The United India Insurance Company was the second opposite party in W.C.No.118 of 2005. The petitioner herein, who was the first opposite party in the case before the Commissioner, did not appear in the case. He was set ex-parte on 19.5.2006. The Commissioner passed the final order on 31st December O.P.(Civil) No.231/2011 2 2008, awarding a compensation of ` 39,932/- in favour of the first respondent. 2. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order. The application was filed in November, 2009. The Commissioner dismissed the application as per the order dated 22nd March 2010, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. In the application for setting aside the ex-parte order, the petitioner stated that in 1997, he had sustained serious injuries and later in June 2008, he was undergoing treatment for heart ailments. In the application, it is stated that he received notice in the proceedings and he approached the Insurance Company. They stated that since there is insurance, the petitioner need not worry. Thereafter, he came to know of the order only when he received notice directing him to pay the amount. The Commissioner did not accept the case put forward by the petitioner and dismissed the application. O.P.(Civil) No.231/2011 3 4. Cogent reasons have been stated by the Commissioner to dismiss the application. The proceedings were initiated by a mahout. He contended that he was employed by the petitioner. This was not denied by the petitioner. The petitioner remained absent and he was set ex-parte in 2006. After several years, he wanted the ex-parte order to be set aside. That application was dismissed on 22nd March, 2010. On 17.1.2011, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition challenging the order dismissing the application for setting aside the ex-parte order. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. The order is legal and valid. No grounds are made out for interference. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl