IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COUKT OF GHHATFISGARHAT BILASPUR (GHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(227) NO.SSa'^/2010. ^WStE BENGH PETITIONER: APPLICANT: J.K.Rai, son of R.L.Rai, aged about 50 years, residence of Civic Center, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Dui^, Chhattisgarh. versus ResRondents Non-Applicants: ,CT< ,\v^ /• <K.V^~ ^C^O .'/^' V CN ..^' Q/' 1. Milandn Bai, wife of Rai Singh Kureti 2. Tameshwar Prasad, son of Rai Singh Kureti. 3. Hemant Kumar, son of Rai Smgh Kureti. Sr.no. 2 and 3 minor Through Natural Guardian M,other Milanti Bai, wife of Rai Smgh Kureti. AU resident of village Poparkhar, Post Kodekasa, Police Station Mahamaya, Tahsil daundilohara, District Durg. 4. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, C/o Junior Enguieer Electricity Board, Balod, Tahsil Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5. The National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Branch -1, Bhutani Coinplex Power House Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6. Motin Bai, wife of Late Mansingh, residence of Poparkhar, Post Kodekasa, Tahsil Daundilohara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PN-ITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •^ MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0.5592 OF 2010 PETITIONER J.K. Rai RESPONDENTS Versus Milantin Bai & others (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Mon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.K. Sahu, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3 & 6. Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Shri G.V.K. Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 4th day of December, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 15-06-2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Durg, in Misc. Case No,2/2010/W.C.Act (J.K. Raf' v. Milantin Bai & Others), b-y which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC") has been rejected. 3. Shri Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the husband of respondent No.1, father of respondents No.2 & 3 and son of respondent No.6 namely, Rai Singh, who was working in the company of the petitioner as labour, died on 6-3-2006 as a result of electric shock while discharging his duties. The respondents No.1 to 3 &6 filed suit for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act, 1923"). The said fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, without issuing notice or without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner an ex parte award has been passed on 11-2-2009 (Annexure P/2) againstthe petitioner. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner came to know about the said fact on 23-12-2009 when he received the notice in case No.8/M.C.S.C./09. Thereafter, he immediately contacted the counsel and after inspection of the records, moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte award dated 11-2-2009 along with an application for grant of interim relief as well as application for condonation of delay. The 2^£o^o_2®2^e^.^' %a'!.. ^£. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. Gowri respondents No.1 to 3 & 6 submitted their reply stating that the application of the petitioner may be allowed by imposing the cost of ? 1,000/-. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 ofthe CPC has been rejected on 15-6-2010. In the meanwhile, the respondents/claimants moved an application under Section 31 of the Act, 1923 for recovery of the amount in compliance of the award dated 11-2-2009. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Durg, issued a notice on 9-8-2010 for recovery of the award amount. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and the same is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. The authority below has not at all appreciated the fact that the employees of the petitioner company are insured with the Insurance Company. The basic principle of adjudication is compliance of principles of natural justice. Case of the petitioner is that he did not receive any notice and he was not aware of pendency of the claim case. He came to know about the ex parte award dated 11-2-2009 when he received the notice from the executing Court. On perusal of the papers, it is found that ip response to the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC filed by the petitioner, the respondents/claimants have categorically stated that the application for setting aside the ex parte award may be allowed, subject to payment of cost of ? 1,000/-. The Commissioner has taken a hyper technical stand while rejecting the application of the petitioner for setting aside exparte award dated 11-2-2009. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and in the interest of justice, it is expedient and proper that the order dated 15-6-2010 be quashed. Accordingly, the order dated 15-6-2010 (Annexure - P/1) is quashed, subject to payment of cost of? 3,000/- by the petitioner payable to the respondents/claimants jointly. The case is restored to its original number. The Court below is directed to proceed with the matter afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the aforesaid observation made by this Court shall not be construed, as observation on merit while deciding the case. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extgnt. Sdl' ^nW i.^^° 8atteb^ ^^^^•ss?-1'-^-