1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4580/2007 {Gajanand Jat & Others Versus The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation & Others} Date of Order :: 12th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka for the petitioners Mr. Amit Punia for the respondent no.2 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Punia appears for the respondent no.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that claimant - respondent no.2 Shrawan Mali filed an application for compensation under the provisions of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation and during the pendency of that application, the non-claimants no. 1 to 4 filed an application dated 4th July, 2006 to the effect that there are other recorded tenants of the land where `well' is situated and accident took place, in addition to non claimants no. 1 to 4, therefore, they may also be impleaded as party in the application. The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation rejected the said 2 application on 4th July, 2006 itself. Subsequently the non claimants no. 1 and 2 filed further application to the effect that non - claimant no.4 Jagannath has died and his legal representatives have not been brought on record, therefore, the application be dismissed as abated. The said application was dismissed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner vide its order dated 13th June, 2007. The aforesaid both the orders have been challenged by non claimants – petitioners before this Court by way of this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Workmen Compensation Commissioner committed an illegality in rejecting their both the applications, whereas the impleadment of party was necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further contended that in absence of application for substitution of legal representatives of deceased non claimant no. 4, the claim application ought to have been dismissed as abated. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant – respondent no.2 contended that so far as order dated 4th July, 2006 is concerned, the learned Workmen Commissioner passed the order that 3 according to knowledge of claimant the non- applicant no.1 to 4 are the only recorded tenant of the land in dispute where accident took place. So far as another application regarding substitution of legal representatives of deceased non claimant no. 4 Jagannath is concerned, he contended that he has already moved an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner but order on that application could not be passed because of interim stay order passed by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders in the light of their submissions and also examined the other documents placed on record with the writ petition. So far as order dated 4th July, 2006 is concerned, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has observed that it is not necessary for a labour to know as to how many persons are partners in non - claimant's institution. It is for the non-claimant to prove this fact by adducing evidence. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has already observed that it will be open for the non applicants to adduce evidence about other 4 employer and in case the same evidence is adduced, then what will be its effect, will be considered by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner at the time of final disposal of the case. So far as another submission regarding substitution of legal representatives of deceased Jagannath is concerned, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 contended that he has already moved an application before the Commissioner under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. So far objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is highly belated is concerned, the same will be allowed to be raised before the Commissioner by filing written reply and during the course of arguments on that application, therefore, no order in this regard can be passed at this stage. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK