< < 48 HI6H COURT OF CHH^TTIS^ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petttion No.2717 of 2005 CORAM; Hon'bie Shri S.ft. Nayak, CJ & Hon'bl®Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS Vedram Suryavanshi, S/o Miloip Suryavanshi, aged about 40 years, R/o. &o^QcmaQar, Post - AAcingla, bistrict - Bilaspur (€.(?.) Versus 1. Presiding Officer Lobour Court Bibspur, Acting As Commissioner for Workmen, Bilaspur, (Under Workmen Compensation Act 1923) District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Sanju Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Krishna Yadav, aged about 20 years, Resident of Village Bharni, P.S* Chakarbhata Tahsil - Takhalpur, District - Bilaspur (C.6.) 3. Smt. Saroj Chcxndrol, W/o Shri Hardeo Narayan Choindrol, R/o, Police Line, P.5. Civil Line Bifaspur (C.6.) Shri Anup Mazoomdar, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vinay Harit, GA. for the State. 5hri Sunil Otwani, Counsel for respondent No,2, None appears for respondent No<3 ORAL ORbER (Pas^d on 25th Januar/, 2006) The following oral order of the Court was pas^d by S.R.NAYAK, CJ. 1, Against the impugned award passed by the first respondent, an appea! lies under Section 30 of -the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ActQ* Jhe only reason stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us to bypass the statutory ~ 2-- -%- 49 \ appea! remedy provided under Section 30 the Act is that the first respondent was not notified to be Commissioner for Workmen Compensation as required under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act and therefore, the award passed by him is a nullity in 1+ie law and therefor®,the writ petition can be maintained. The appellant has also challenged the validity of the execution proceedings initicted by the first respondent in pursuance of 1+ie impugned award, 2. The above stated reason could hardly be a good ond weighty reason for us to permit the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India bypassing statutory appeal remedy provided under Section 30 of the Act It is needless to state 1+iat the very ground urged before us to assaii the validity of the impugned award could bs a ground of att-ack in -riie appeal to be preferred under Section 30 of the Act. It need not take long tim© for us to understand why the petitioner has chosen the shortcut method to approach under Article 226 &. 227. It is obviously because if th©petitioner were to file appeal under Section 30 of the Act. he has to necessarily deposs't the entire compensation money. This attitude on the part of the petitt'oner ccxnnot be countenanced. ^.t-C Furthermore, it needs to be noticed the appeal remedy provided under Section 30 of 1+ie Act is more comprehensive, effective and efficacious than the one remedy that may be granted by this Court under Articles 226 and 227. 3, For afl these reoisons, we decline to entertain this writ petition< It is accordingly dismissed. However, this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner, if he so advised, to work out his legal remedies under Section 30 of the Act by way of appeal. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^