Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 656 (GUJ)

Vijay Kumar Chiranjilal Modi v. State of Gujarat

2016-03-22

R.SUBHASH REDDY, V.M.PANCHOLI

body2016
JUDGMENT : R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4360 of 2015 aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2016. There is an order passed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act on 18.3.2009 for payment of Rs. 3,26,569/- + penalty and interest. The said order has become final. When the amount of compensation was not paid in terms of the order dated 18.3.2009, the workman approached the Tribunal for issuance of recovery certificate. The recovery certificate was issued for an amount of Rs. 4,49,746/-. Consequential to recover the amount, when the notice was issued, the petitioner filed review application on 5.7.2014 seeking review of the order dated 18.3.2009. On the ground that during the pendency of the review application, the respondent-authorities were taking steps to recover the amount, the petitioner approached this Court and filed Special Civil Application. During the pendency of the Special Civil Application, the petitioner has deposited the amount in terms of the recovery proceedings to the tune of Rs. 4,49,746/-. At the time of disposal of Special Civil Application, request is made on behalf of the appellant-petitioner seeking directions to the authority to dispose off the review application filed by the petitioner. Such request is refused by learned Single Judge and paragraph 4.4. of the order reads as under: "4.4 In the facts noted above, this Court finds that merits of the review application need not be gone into by this Court, but no observation or direction could be given qua disposal of the said application. Suffice it to hold that giving any such direction would mean that the said application is otherwise believed to be maintainable, which prima facie is not. Suffice it to hold that on the ground of filing of review application, the background of which is briefly noted above, the Execution Proceedings need not be interjected in any manner. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed." 2. In this appeal, it is admitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that he has already deposited the amount of Rs. 4,49,746/- and further that the review application was already heard and is reserved for orders from September, 2015. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed." 2. In this appeal, it is admitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that he has already deposited the amount of Rs. 4,49,746/- and further that the review application was already heard and is reserved for orders from September, 2015. As such, he has made a request to direct the respondents to dispose off the review application uninfluenced by the observations made by the order dated 16.2.2016 with a further direction not to allow the workman to withdraw the compensation which he has already deposited. 3. Though there is no express provision for review in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, but the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Ravjibhai Jesangbhai Parmar, 2006 (3) GLH 333 . In the aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court has held that in absence of any express statutory provision for review, review is maintainable, if some mistake or error is crept in the order and is apparent on the face of the record. 4. In view of pendency of the application filed by the petitioner on 5.7.2014, seeking review of order dated 18.3.2009, we are not inclined to express any opinion either with regard to maintainability, issue of limitation, etc. In this case, it is to be noticed that the order passed by the authority has become final and what is challenged in the Special Civil Application is only recovery certificate which is consequential to the main order passed by the authority on 18.3.2009. While disposing of the matter the learned Single Judge has also ordered to transfer the amount deposited pursuant to orders of this Court dated 13.3.2015 to the Court of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner at Dahod and the same be dealt in accordance with law. 5. As we are not inclined to grant relief as requested by the learned Counsel for the appellant keeping in mind that the application filed by the appellant is pending consideration before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, we dispose of this appeal directing the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to dispose of the said application filed by the appellant as early as possible, preferably within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Order shall be passed uninfluenced by any of the findings/observations made by this Court in the Special Civil Application or in this order. The same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion either with regard to maintainability of the review petition, the issue of limitation, etc. or the application filed by the appellant/petitioner. 6. With the observations as indicated above this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of with directions as indicated above. Direct service is permitted. In view of the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, the Civil Application stands disposed of.