IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 3584 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REMANI, W/O. PUSHPANGATHAN, PUTHAN MADOM, POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, VYTTILA, COCHIN -19. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.SANKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N.K. BABU, VADAKKETHARA HOUSE, POONITHURA P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS REG. MANAGER, REGD. OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN -35. 3. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R2 SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.MARTIN D ALUMKARA FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 3584/2009. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.F.A.693/03. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 7-5-2008. EXT.P3 ORDER IN I.A.6/08 IN WCC NO. 130/98 DT. 17-10-2008. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 15-1-2009. EXT.P5 PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.6/2008. EXT.P6 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DT. 23-7-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 3584 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the employer in W.C.C. No. 130/1998 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam. Originally an award was passed directing the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 22,747/- to the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner challenged the same in M.F.A.No. 693/2003. That M.F.A was disposed of by this Court by Ext. P1 judgment, wherein the quantification of compensation and the eligibility of the 1st respondent for receiving the same were confirmed. But, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for considering the question of liability of the insurer, namely, the 2nd respondent herein. By Ext. P1 judgment, the parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 10-1-2008. Accordingly, the Commissioner called the case on 10-1-2008. The petitioner did not appear, but the Insurance Company appeared. Thereafter, the same was adjourned to 23-1-2008, 11-3-2008 and 7-5-2008. On none of these days, the petitioner appeared. Therefore, the Commissioner passed Ext. P2 order, upholding the original award. The petitioner filed Ext. P5 application before the Commissioner as I.A.No. 6/2008 for re-opening and re-hearing the case on the ground that on 7-5- 2008, the petitioner reached the court late, by which time the case had already been called and disposed of. However, the Commissioner rejected the I.A by Ext. P3 order. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P4 notice was issued to the petitioner calling for objections as to why the amount deposited should not be disbursed to the claimant. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records leading to Ext. P2 & P3 and to quash the W.P.C. No. 3584/2009 -: 2 :- same by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other such appropriate writ, order or direction; (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the issues afresh after hearing parties.” 2. Heard parties. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner failed to note the direction in Ext. P1 judgment that the parties shall appear before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 10-1-2008. Subsequently, the posting of the case on 7-5-2008 was noted and on the advice of the advocate of the petitioner, the petitioner rushed to the RTO, Ernakulam to obtain certified copy of the registration particulars of the vehicle in question on that day to be produced before the Commissioner. By the time the petitioner obtained the same and reached the court, the case had already been called and disposed of. According to the petitioner, in such circumstances, the petitioner should be given another opportunity to contest the matter on merits regarding the liability of the insurer. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Insurance Company refuting the contentions of the petitioner. 5. Although the explanation given by the petitioner is not quite acceptable, taking a lenient view, I am inclined to grant the petitioner another opportunity. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Exts. P2 and P3 orders of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner are set aside. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner shall restore the workmen's compensation case to file. The 1st respondent-claimant shall not be required to appear and participate in the case again. The only question which shall be considered by the Commissioner is the liability of the 2nd respondent- W.P.C. No. 3584/2009 -: 3 :- Insurance Company to indemnify the petitioner for the amount of compensation awarded. The amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be disbursed to the 1st respondent immediately. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner shall hear the petitioner and the Insurance Company on 14-12-2009 and orders regarding the question of liability of the Insurance Company shall be passed within one month thereafter. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/