Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 985 (JHR)

Madhuri Devi v. Mohan Singh

2012-07-16

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner/employer of the vehicle in question for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2006 by which the petition filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the C. P. C. praying therein for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 30.11.2005 passed in W. C. Case No. 13 of 2004 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for setting aside notice dated 03.05.2006 (Annexure-6) issued by the Certificate Officer, Bokaro for payment of Rs. 1,66,800/-upon the petitioner/employer. The petitioner has further prayed for stay of notice no. 458 dated 01.02.2006 in W. C. Case No.13 of 2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro for payment of interest @ 12 % on the awarded compensation amount. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not intend to press the prayer, which relates to quashing of the order by which his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C. P. C. has been refused. 4. Further it is submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that from the impugned notice contained at Annexure-6 issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act by the Certificate Officer, it appears that the amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,66,800/-has already been deposited by the Insurance Company is once again sought to be realised from the petitioner/ employer herein, which is not sustainable in law and suffers from non application of mind. 5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that as per the order dated 30.11.2005 and order dated 22.03.2006 refusing prayer made under Order IX Rule 13 of the C. P. C. dated 22.03.2006, the amount of compensation in question, which is Rs. 1,66,800/-has been deposited by the Insurance Company as per the liability fixed upon him as it is a condition precedent for filing appeal. It is further submitted that the employer is entitled to interest under Section 4A of the Workmen Compensation Act from the employer and has referred to the order contained at Annexure-A dated 18.07.2008 in M. A. Case No. 29 of 2008. preferred by the Insurance Company. 6. It is further submitted that the employer is entitled to interest under Section 4A of the Workmen Compensation Act from the employer and has referred to the order contained at Annexure-A dated 18.07.2008 in M. A. Case No. 29 of 2008. preferred by the Insurance Company. 6. Counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that after certain delay, about 80 days, the amount of Rs. 4387/-has already been paid by him vide Cheque No. 681448 dated 05.12.2008 and there is no further liability upon him. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner was only issued notice under Section 7 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act and therefore he should have moved before the Certificate Officer, but he has straightaway moved this Court for quashing of the impugned notice. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Certificate Officer in pending proceeding in Certificate Case No. 05/2006-07 by filing his objection raising all available points, which shall be dealt with by the Certificate Officer in accordance with law under the Provisions of the Act. 8. Petitioner may approach the Certificate Officer within a period of eight weeks for redressal of his grievance in connection with the demand. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Petition disposed of.