Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1719 (PNJ)

Omwati & others v. Surinder Kaushik & others

2012-12-03

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
L. N. Mittal, J.— (ORAL) Petitioners herein were claimants before the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Faridabad (in short, the Commissioner). Their claim petition for compensation was dismissed in default by the Commissioner vide order dated 04.02.2000 Annexure P-1 because none appeared for the claimants/petitioners in spite of the case having been called thrice at different times. Claimants then moved application dated 25.11.2000 on 01.12.2000 for restoration of the claim application alleging that they came to know of the order Annexure P-1 on 25.11.2000 only as their counsel had not informed them about it. The said application was opposed by respondents No. 2 and 6 alleging inter alia that claimants had also filed claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (the Tribunal) claiming compensation for the same death. Learned Commissioner vide order dated 22.08.2001 Annexure P-2 has dismissed the restoration application. Feeling aggrieved, claimants have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 passed by the Commissioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners are widow, minor children and widowed mother of the deceased and, therefore impugned orders of the Commissioner should be set aside and claim application filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner should be restored. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer but the same cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Relevant portion of order Annexure P-2 passed by the Commissioner is reproduced hereunder: “The applicants have not disclosed in the present application how they came to know about their case being dismissed in default on 25.11.2000. The applicants have not disclosed the fate of the case filed by them under the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Jaipur. The applicants have not explained the reasons for the undue delay in praying for the restoration of the case dismissed in default on 4.2.2000. The applicants have not made it clear that their claim application is still pending with Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Jaipur or not. In case it is still pending with the Motor Accident claim Tribunal, Jaipur, the present case cannot continue in view of the settled law in this regard. The applicants have not made it clear that their claim application is still pending with Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Jaipur or not. In case it is still pending with the Motor Accident claim Tribunal, Jaipur, the present case cannot continue in view of the settled law in this regard. In view of the undue & unexplained delay in filing of the application for restoration of the case, the present application of the applicants is dismissed. No order as to costs. ” The petitioners have not explained as to why none appeared for them on 04.02.2000. They have also not explained how they came to know of the order Annexure P-1 suddenly on 25.11.2000. They have also not explained as to why they did not remain in touch with their counsel although the petitioners are residents of Ballabgarh District Faridabad and the case was also pending before the Commissioner of Ballabgarh Circle at Faridabad. Consequently the claimants/petitioners could not have been unaware of the proceedings before the Commissioner and dismissal of their claim application on 04.02.2000 vide order Annexure P-1, till 25.11.2000. In addition to the aforesaid, it is significant to notice that the petitioners have simultaneously availed of two remedies for the same cause of action. They filed claim application before the Commissioner and also filed claim petition before the Tribunal. This was not permissible. It appears that for this reason, the petitioners intentionally did not pursue the claim application before the commissioner and got it dismissed in default vide order Annexure P-1. In spite of observations made by the Commissioner in concluding paragraph in order Annexure P-2 as reproduced hereinbefore, no reference at all has been made in the revision petition as to when the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal and what was the status thereof and whether it was still pending or had been decided and if so, what was the result thereof. Counsel for the petitioners even now is unable to tell as to when the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal and when it was withdrawn although it is stated that the said claim petition stands withdrawn. It is thus apparent that the petitioners have been abusing the process of law by filing claim application before the Commissioner and also by filing claim petition before the Tribunal. In addition to the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is also barred by delay and laches. It is thus apparent that the petitioners have been abusing the process of law by filing claim application before the Commissioner and also by filing claim petition before the Tribunal. In addition to the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is also barred by delay and laches. Impugned order Annexure P-2 is dated 22.08.2001 whereas the instant revision petition was filed on 01.05.2003 i. e. after twenty moths of the passing of order Annexure P-2. There is no explanation whatsoever for this long delay of twenty months in filing the revision petition. It is correct that no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless the revision petition is required to be filed within reasonable period. What should be the reasonable period for filing revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be a matter of some debate. However, analogy may be drawn from limitation period of 90 days prescribed for filing revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should also be filed within period of 90 days, with flexibility of some variation depending on facts and circumstances of each case. However, in this case, the petitioners have waited for twenty long months to file this revision petition which is thus barred by delay and laches. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. There is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned orders passed by the Commissioner so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Merely on the basis of sympathy for the claimants/petitioners, the impugned orders cannot be set aside. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed.