Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4116 (MAD)

Solaippan v. Commissioner & Others

2008-11-10

K.CHANDRU

body2008
Judgment :- It is a peculiar Writ Petition filed by the owner of Solaimalai Estate, Pandalur, Nilgiris, seeking for a direction to the contesting respondents 4 and 5 not enforce the order passed in W.C.No.155 of 1994 dated 02.05.1997. 2. It is seen from the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner that the petitioner was issued with a notice by the Tahsildar, Pandalur, dated 19.04.1999 with a direction to recover a sum of Rs.60,998/- together with interest amounting to a sum of Rs.1,23,218/-and a distraint notice was sought to be issued. .3. The petitioner on being aware of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner estate by the second and third respondents seeking for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 has rushed this Court and obtained a stay of further proceedings. 4. The ground raised by the petitioner was that originally an exparte order was passed against him on 23.05.1996 and on an application the same was set aside. Thereafter, the Commissioner dismissed the Workmens Compensation case in W.C.No.155 of 1994 on merits after hearing both sides. Once such an order was passed by the Commissioner, he has no jurisdiction to deal with it again. On the contrary, he has received the application from the workman and reopened the case and ordered the compensation amount. After the order dated 02.05.1997, the claimants sought to recover the amount by invoking the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner also filed a Review Application which was not considered by the Authorities. 5. Therefore, he has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a restraint on the proceedings initiated under Revenue Recovery Act. It was sought to be argued that in an execution proceedings, the void nature of the original order can be canvassed. It is on this ground, the Writ Petition was taken on file and notice was issued to the contesting respondents. This Court passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the credit of W.C.No.155 of 1994. It is also stated that the amount has been deposited. 6. Mr. A.U. Ilango, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after dismissing Workmens Compensation case on merits, the order passed by the Authority once again passing an order for compensation was improper. It is also stated that the amount has been deposited. 6. Mr. A.U. Ilango, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after dismissing Workmens Compensation case on merits, the order passed by the Authority once again passing an order for compensation was improper. It is found in the present Writ Petition, he has not challenged any of those orders, but merely seeking for writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 4 and 5 from invoking Revenue Recovery proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from canvassing such grounds in the absence of a valid challenge to the orders of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner. .7. This Court in more than one occasion has held that as against the order of Workmens Commissioner a Writ Petition under Article 226 is not permissible. In this context, Mr. Ajay Khose, learned counsel for the claimants brought to the notice of this Court a Judgment of the Division Bench reported in 2001-II-L.L.J page 1198, (Management of Bhavanji Mills, Rajapalayam .vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and another). Speaking for the bench V.S. Sirpurkar, J (as he then was) in paragraph 6 of the Judgment has held that such a Writ Petition is not maintainable. Similarly in an another Judgment reported in 1998 Writ Law Reporter Page 42 (M. Rahimkan ..vs.. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour and others) P. Sadhasivam. J, (as he then was) has held that this Court cannot entertain a Writ Petition against the order passed by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner whatever may be the nature of the order. The remedy open to an aggrieved person is to file an Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act. 8. In the light of the same, this Court is unable to go into the merits of the allegations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise the various orders passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is not directly under challenge. The argument that when an order is nullity then Writ remedy is available cannot be acceptable especially when a valuable remedy by way of an appeal under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act is available. 9. Mr. A.U. Ilango, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the interim order passed by this Court wherein the objection made was overruled. An interim order cannot be a guiding factor in deciding the main Writ petition. 9. Mr. A.U. Ilango, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the interim order passed by this Court wherein the objection made was overruled. An interim order cannot be a guiding factor in deciding the main Writ petition. When there are binding legal precedents, it is not open to this Court to entertain a Writ Petition against the orders of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner. 10. Hence, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to entertain. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. It is open to the contesting respondents/claimants to withdraw the sum of Rs.30,000/-lying in deposit with the Workmens Compensation Commissioner and take steps to recover the balance amounts.