C—78 ^\A o"' si^si^a'few 'g2)?3iit?ra:iiR? 3^r^nqT^pr, ®Tii<H'i<s,i<(0i+)y .^.:.£C^....B.5..?., sn^?r tiaw ('^?^??^ 'g^iiwaittf an^r '*itii<-t'i<'l-i Twrat'•ff.ft^•(tegR i?3i{gH3n^% PETmONER^ RESPONDENTS: Vei^us 11. C.G. State Co-op. Marketing Federation, Limited through Disbict Marketing OfRcer, C.G. State Co- op. Marketing Federation, Limited, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) Savita Bai, W/o Late Mahesh Kumar, aged about 30 years, R/o Thana Chowk, Dongargarh, Tehsil Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Ashutosh S/o Late Mahesh Kumar, aged about 12 years, through Natural Guardian Savita Bai. Sunil Kumar, S/o Late h4ahesh Kumar, aged about 10 years, through Natural Guardian Savita Bai All Residents of Thana Chowk, Dongargarh, Tehsit - Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Manqj Agrawal, S/o Laxmi Narayan Agrawal, Occupation- Businessman, R/o Khandupara, Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Smt. Rita Agrawal W/o Shri Manoj Agrawal, R/p Khandupara, Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.^ g^q- ^i|t|i<?)A|, giTTly'ie, fsiciiyy 3IK?;?CTfeN ^qTSiI^TSiliNT ant?r''w' ( 'roiiwaftCTan^r •*i'q[<!i<i1-i •qnai•S.fe'st <l"i^i< ^?3flgs* (Writ Petition under ^rticle Sinale Bench: Hon 04-01-2008:- Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. petitioner. Mr. Anand Shukla, Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Mr. Varunendra Mishra,| Heard. The petitioner haspreft Constitution of India questioni dated 14-5-2007 passed by Rajnandgaon, whereby & the application of the petitione passed against him on 1-7-2C Rs.2,000/- as also directed security deposit. The main grievance of award was passed against the Ac|vocate with Mr. Dilip Dubey, Advocate for the C.G. State Warehousing Corporation, through Branch Manager, C.G. State Warehousing CorporaUon, Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act Rajnandgaon 227 ofthe Constitution of India) 'ble IVIr.JusticeL.C. Bhadoo cour|sel for respondents No. 1,2 &3. cou^sel for respondentsNo. 4 & 5. :ounsel for respondent No. 6. ^rred this writ petition under Arttele 227 of the |ng the legality and correctness of the order Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, whe^-eunder learned Commissioner white allowing herein for setting aside the ex parte award by the Commissioner imposed the cost of petitioner herein to deposit Rs.3 lakhs as 2d06 the |counsel for the petftioner is that as ex parte |»etjtioner<on1-7-2(X and for setting aside the 3^- ^|A|i0<4, ©Tfly'is,(s|(»iq^< 1RW ( 3!i^i?H'f?:m? fc- •FRiTWH^sn^I <*l''li<?l''i)-< *IPRi?^fe^ <f»l«$K ^sifg: •3- said order petitioner moved an of Civil Procedure, the sam |application under Order 9 Rule 13 ofthe Code ^ was allowed by the Commissioner vide impugned order and cost of ps.2,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. <- ts0 <- There was/occasion for direct|ig the petitioner white setting aside ex parfe award to deposit Rs.3 Lakhs ^s security deposit. He submits that once ex- paite award passed against th^ petitioner herein was set aside, the order of Commissioner to that extent 4f passing an order to deposit Rs.3 lakhs as security deposit is withoutjuris<|iction. On the other hand, learnj^d counsel for the respondents argued that as the award was also passed ag^iinst the petitioner herein, that is why ex parte proceedings were initiated agaihst the petitioner. While setting aside the said ex-parte order, learned Comm competent to impose conditior( Compensation Act ttiat if the amount payable under the ordf parte order was set aside and| against the petitioner herein vi( was not competent to direct ths) ssioner has rightfy imposed the condition for depositing the security deposit. ] Having heard leamed ^ounsel for the parties, 1 have perused the record. Vide impugned order lejamed Commissioner set-aside exparte award passed against the petitioner ar^d for negligence on the part of the petitioner a cost of Rs.2,000/- has also b^en imposed upon the petitioner. There is no provision that while setting asicje ex parfeaward, learned Commissioner was on the petitioner herein to deposit security deposit to the tune of Rs.3 lakhjs. Of-course, there is provision in Workmen's ^ppeal is filed under Section 30 against the award, as per proviso to Secti4n 30, the employer is required to deposit the ^r appealed against. But in this case, as ex thereby award passect by the Commissioner as already set-aside, learned Commissioner petition^r herein to deposit the amount to the <:/y^-<» sn^^i'f^N "- Amit 'N,01 3^f '^W ^, tOxfly'lg, Rlrtiyy aniw'(Rra? (vSyyt) ?ORR'a^ti 311^1 ^nfepih iipRif if.ft^'(Rif^ •^- tune of Rs. 3 lakhs as securi|y deposit, this was not within his jurisdiction therefore, this direction cannof be sustained, same being passed withou jurisdiction, as such, petition df the petitioner to that extent is allowed anc direction of leamed Commissi<! tp thetune of Rs.3 lakhs as secprity deposit is set aside. The claim case of rej Commissioner since, 2004, ttfereby, more than 3 % years have already elapsed, therefore, teamed (pommissioner is directed to expedite the proceedings of the claim case possible.in accordance with lav|f. ner directing the petitioner to deposit amounl pondents No. 1 to 3 is pending before the and try to dispose of the same as earty as Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge