Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1151 (MAD)

P. Gnanasekaran v. Tmt. S. Devakani

2017-04-19

G.JAYACHANDRAN

body2017
ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the return of the petition filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, which according to the petitioner is an ex parte award. Whereas, the return endorsement says, ''the award being passed on merits, the application is returned. Appeal to the High Court for redressal''. 2. Aggrieved by that return, the present revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, on the ground that instead of taking the application on file, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, has summarily returned the application without affording an opportunity to effectively defend the claim of the petitioner herein, hence, it is perverse and against the principles of natural justice. 3. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are legal heirs of one L.Santhanam. Claim petition for compensation was filed by them alleging that the said Santhanam worked as Tractor driver under the revision petitioner/1st opposite party in the claim petition. On 22.10.2011, while ploughing the Tractor, Santhanam got stuck to the soil and turtled down resulting in the death of the said Santhanam. 4. Whereas, the case of the revision petitioner is that there was no employer-employee relationship between him and the deceased Santhanam. The alleged accident occurred not in the field while ploughing, but after completing the work when the deceased tried to mount the Tractor on a 5 feet high ridge against the advise of the bystanders. Further, it was contended that the deceased was employed under the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties who are respondents 6 and 7 herein, for salary. 5. After filing counter, the revision petitioner has remained absent inviting ex parte award on 24.10.2014. Later, the said award has been set aside with costs on specific direction to the parties to complete the trial in three adjournments. Thereafter, at the instance of the revision petitioner, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were impleaded in the claim petition, who are respondents 6 and 7 herein. The revision petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 have failed to let in evidence on their behalf though the case has been adjourned for several times in a span of 5 months. Thereafter, they were set ex parte. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai after hearing the counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 5 herein, has passed an award on 07.09.2016. 6. Thereafter, they were set ex parte. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai after hearing the counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 5 herein, has passed an award on 07.09.2016. 6. The award and the endorsement returning the application to set aside the award perused. 7. Though the revision petitioner filed counter, due to his non-participation in the trial despite adequate opportunity, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, has rightly proceeded further to pass the award based on the evidence available on record. However, the award as it reads is substantially an ex parte award. Therefore, the return of the application for the reason stated by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is erroneous. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour ought to have taken the application on file and disposed it on merits, after considering whether the reason for non appearance pleaded by the revision petitioner herein, is satisfactorily explained. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants submits that since 2012, the revision petitioner is successfully protracting the proceedings. The legal heirs of the deceased person are deprived of due compensation within reasonable time though decree was passed in their favour. 9. This Court while admitting the revision petition, by order dated 07.03.2017, has directed the revision petitioner to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- as condition for grant of interim stay. Since the apprehension of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants that the revision petitioner is bent upon to protract the proceedings endlessly, appears to be prima facie correct as seen from the past conduct of the revision petitioner, it is just and necessary to ensure speed trial of the case as well as no further delay should be caused by the revision petitioners. 10. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, is directed to take on file the application to set aside the award dated 07.09.2016, if the revision petitioner deposits a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in addition to Rs.1,50,000/- already deposited to the credit of W.C.No.55 of 2012 on or before 15.05.2017. The application to set aside the ex parte award shall be decided on merits after affording opportunity to both parties. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above direction. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The application to set aside the ex parte award shall be decided on merits after affording opportunity to both parties. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above direction. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. CRP.(MD) No.440 of 2017 G. JAYACHANDRAN, J. This matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to amend the order dated 19.04.2017, made in CRP.(MD).No.440 of 2017, in view of the error in describing the authority who passed the impugned order as “Deputy Commissioner of Labour”, Madurai, instead of “Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation”, Madurai. The said request is allowed. The office is directed to substitute the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai with Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, wherever found in the above said order dated 19.04.2017. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition in the said order to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 15.05.2017 could not be comply with due to the above said error. Therefore the petitioner needs a few days more to comply the conditional order. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for extending the time till 07.06.2017. Accordingly the time to deposit the said amount is extended upto 07.06.2017. 4. The Registry is directed to issue the corrected order copy today itself. The other portions of the order remains intact.