WP(C) 2464/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA.. In both the writ petitions filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, the challenge made is the orders, by which the petitions filed by the Insurance Company for setting aside the ex parte judgment and award have been dismissed wi thout any reference to the said petitions. Shortly stated, the facts leading to filing of instant two writ petition s are that an accident took place on 11.2.2002 involving the vehicle bearing reg istration No.AS-23/8187 (Truck) belonging to the Respondent No.3. The Responden t No.2 was working in the said truck as a Handyman and because of the accident, he sustained injuries, as a consequence of which, he had approached the Workmen’ s Compensation Commissioner by filing Case No.33/2002. So far as the other claim ant is concerned, she is the wife of the deceased driver, who died in the said a ccident. Her claim was registered and numbered as Case No.34/2002. While Case No.33/2002 was disposed of by judgment and award dated 21.7.2 003, Case No.34/2002 was disposed of by judgment and award dated 8.7.2003. In Ca se No.33/2002, the compensation awarded is Rs.2,15,040/- with 9% interest per an num. The total amount shown in the award is Rs.2,42,977.85 with the stipulation that in default to payment, same would carry interest @9% per annum. In Case No.34/2002, the compensation awarded is Rs.3,68,340/- with inter est @9% per annum on the basis of which total amount was calculated at Rs.4,15,0 36/- with the stipulation that the delayed payment would carry interest @9% per annum. It is the aforesaid two orders, which are under challenge in the two wri t petitions. I have heard Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases as well as Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-claimant in WP(C) No.2464/2004 as well as Ms A. Choudhury, l earned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3. I have also heard Ms Rita Bor o Bora, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.2464/2004, appointed by the Assam State Legal Services Authority to assist the claimants. I have also gone through the records of the case that have been received from th e Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the Insurance Company duly responded to both the proceedings, but in absence of spec ified dates indicated in the order-sheet, the Insurance Company represented by i ts lawyer was unaware of the subsequent dates affixed in the proceeding. In this connection, he has referred to the photocopies of the order sheets enclosed to the writ petitions. On perusal of the said order sheets, it is seen that the dat es were altered subsequently. For example, the initial date 23.4.2003 was alter ed to 30.4.2003. Although the order was passed on 12.3.2003, but the Workmen’s C ompensation Commissioner signed the order on 30.4.2003. Similarly, the 30.4.200 3 order was signed on 3.6.2003. Again, in the order passed on 6.7.2003, the ord er dated 16.7.2003 was overwritten. The 17.5.2003 order was signed on 21.7.2003. Further, the figure 17.5.2003, more particularly, figure 5 is overwritten. In the applications filed for setting aside the ex parte award under Ord er 9 Rule 13 CPC, the Insurance Company explained the circumstances for non-appe arance. In the applications, it was pointed out that in case of filing any petit ion before the Court, the judicial stamp affixed on the petition was neither pun ched nor the petition was numbered. Referring to the subsequent incident of subm itting petition on 12.3.2003 praying for time to file written statement, it was the stand of the Insurance Company that on receipt of the said application, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner orally told the learned counsel that the nex t date would 30.4.2003 for submission of written statement. However, on 30.4.20 03, the learned counsel was informed that the date was fixed on 23.4.2003 and no t 30.4.2003. In the said applications, numerous instances of such alteration of dates etc. were furnished. To quell any doubt, I have verified the original records . Surprisingly, the records do not contain the original order sheets but it con tains the typed copy of the order sheet without signatures of the Workmen’s Comp ensation Commissioner. The records also do not contain the petitions filed by th e Insurance Company. On perusal of the entire records, it cannot be said to be t he records of the Court case. It is in this manner, the records were maintained and thereafter, the Court attributed guilt to the Insurance Company for not bein g present so as to close the proceedings with the impugned ex parte orders. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted tha t the writ petitions are not maintainable inasmuch as the impugned award is ap pellable under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. He also submi ts that the Insurance Company having filed applications for setting aside the ex parte award under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the Insurance Company ought to have pre ferred appeal as provided for under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the cha llenge made in this proceeding is the orders by which the applications for setti ng aside the ex parte award have been rejected and as there is no provision for appeal under the aforesaid Act in respect of such order, the writ petitions are maintainable. He also submits that under Rule 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation R ule, 1924, there is no provision for appeal in case of rejection of an applicati on made under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Codes. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitions were entertained by order dated 2.4.2004 in WP(C ) No.2461/2004 on which date, the question was put as to the maintainability of the writ petition. Thereafter, by order dated 27.4.2005. Writ petition was admi tted for hearing with the stay of the impugned order. Similarly, WP(C) No.2464/ 2004 was entertained by order dated 2.4.2004 and the impugned order was suspende d. Long 7 years passed since the writ petitions had been admitted for hearing. In my considered opinion, it will not be appropriate to debar the petitioner at this subsequent stage of the writ proceeding on the plea of having not pursued the alternative remedy. That apart, the petitioner-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the orders by which the prayer for setting aside the ex parte judgm ent and award in question was rejected. Further, Rule 41 of the Workmen’s Compe nsation Rules, 1924 makes specific provision for application of certain provisio ns of C.P.C. There being no mention as to what would happen on rejection of peti tion under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, it cannot be said that the petitioners are bound to prefer an appeal as per provisions under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC. Merely because, the applications for setting aside the ex parte judgment and awa rd was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, it cannot be said that the Insurance Com pany is bound under the provisions of the CPC to prefer an appeal against the re jection of the prayer for setting aside the ex parte award. Be that as it may, since the writ petitions are pending for last 7 yeas after their admission and i nterim order of stay, more particularly, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the considered opinion that the pl ea of non-maintainability of the writ petitions is liable to be rejected. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are allowed by setting aside and q uashing the impugned judgment and awards and the orders by which the application s for setting aside the ex parte judgment and award have been rejected. The matt er shall now go back to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Tezpur for fres h decision in the matter facilitating which both the parties shall appear before the said Commissioner on 25th March, 2011 and upon such appearance, the Commiss ioner shall fix the next date and thereafter, shall proceed with the matter, upo n apprising both the parties the next date(s) which might be fixed. It is expect ed that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner will decide the matter upon hear ing all the parties as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 (three) mo nths from the aforesaid date fixed. To expedite the matter and as submitted by Mr. Singh, learned counsel fo r the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company may submit its written statement in both the proceedings on the date fixed i.e. 25.3.2011. The matter shall proce ed thereafter in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mrs. Bora, learned counsel for the Assam State Legal Services Authority. Before parting with the case records, I place on record my words of appr eciation for the assistance rendered by Mrs. Bora.