Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1588 (JHR)

Tata Steel Ltd. v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-09-01

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2017
ORDER Rajesh Shankar, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 2) in W.C Case No. 61 of 2009, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,58,188/- together with interest @ 12% from the date of accident in favour of the respondent no. 3 to be paid within 60 days and in failure to pay the amount within the stipulated time, the petitioner was made liable to pay Rs. 25000/- as penalty. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no. 3 was a national level sportsman and was engaged by the petitioner on contractual basis from 15.05.2002 to 14.05.2003 and he was paid stipend of Rs. 2,500/-. The contract was further extended for one year from 19.05.2003 to 18.05.2004. On 04.07.2003, the respondent no. 3 participated in the Inter Divisional Weight Lifting Championship held at Jamshedpur, but unfortunately, during weight lifting of 110 Kg, his shoulder got injured. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 underwent medical treatment and the doctor who had conducted his operation strictly cautioned him to avoid weight lifting. The respondent no. 3 wrote letters to the petitioner for providing medical facility and also for his employment. However, he was only given a job of salary of Rs. 3100/in the sports hostel on 10.09.2007, but no medical facility and other allowances were given. The respondent no. 3 approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh vide filing W.C Case No. 61 of 2009. The petitioner appeared in the case and denied the claim of the respondent no. 3, but the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 13.10.2010, directed the petitioner to pay the respondent no. 3 an amount of Rs. 1,58,188/- as compensation together with interest @ 12% from the date of accident to the date of payment. It was further directed that in case of failure to make payment of the awarded amount within the stipulated period, a penalty of Rs. 25000/would also be paid by the petitioner. 4. 3 an amount of Rs. 1,58,188/- as compensation together with interest @ 12% from the date of accident to the date of payment. It was further directed that in case of failure to make payment of the awarded amount within the stipulated period, a penalty of Rs. 25000/would also be paid by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State of Bihar had issued a notification dated 06.12.1995 in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1)(2) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1923"), wherein it is provided that all the petition for claim of compensation shall be filed in the court of Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation in uncontested cases and if the same become contested, those will be transferred to the respective presiding officers of the Labour Court. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has decided the contested case without any jurisdiction and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the ground of jurisdictional error. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 got injured on 04.07.2003 and, therefore, in view of Section 10 of the Act, 1923, he should have lodged his complaint within a period of 2 years from the date of occurrence of the accident i.e., till 03.07.2005. However, the claim was filed by the respondent no. 3 on 26.10.2009, after more than 6 years. It is further submitted that fifth proviso to Section 10(1) of the Act, 1923 provides that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim of compensation irrespective of the fact that the claim was not made in due time if he is satisfied with the sufficient cause shown by the claimants. However, the learned Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Hazaribagh, without deciding the issue as to whether the respondent no. 3 has shown sufficient cause for the delay of several years, proceeded to decide the case on merit. It is also submitted that since the petitioner had denied the master and servant relationship with the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 2 got no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, rather the correct procedure was to transfer the case to the Labour Court for proper adjudication of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is wrong to say that the petitioner terminated the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 2 got no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, rather the correct procedure was to transfer the case to the Labour Court for proper adjudication of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is wrong to say that the petitioner terminated the respondent no. 3 without any notice, rather the actual fact is that the respondent no. 3 himself remained absent from duty w.e.f. 18.04.2009. The petitioner all along helped the respondent no. 3 and even the expenses of the hospital was borne by the petitioner and it was the respondent no. 3, who himself ceased to attend the duties. It is further submitted that the issue of maintainability had been raised by the petitioner in the reply filed before the respondent no. 2. Moreover, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on any authority on account of any party failing to raise the said issue at the first instance. It is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that the respondent no. 3 was an employee of the petitioner-company at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that the petitioner-company initially provided him medical facilities on his being injured, but when the medial treatment became expensive and the respondent no. 3 did not recover from his injury, the petitioner left the respondent no. 3 at the mercy of God. It is also submitted that due to the accident, the respondent no. 3 has become 40% permanently disabled and hence, his earning capacity and bright future as a sportsman has come to an end. It is further submitted that on the repeated request of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner provided him a job of salary of Rs. 3100/- in the sports hostel on 10.09.2007, but when the notice of W.C No. 61 of 2009 was received by the petitioner, it terminated the respondent no. 3 without any notice. It is further submitted that the issue of jurisdiction was never raised before the respondent no. 2 and as such, the petitioner is now estopped from raising the maintainability of the proceeding before the Commissioner. It is further submitted that in spite of the repeated opportunities, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the respondent no. It is further submitted that the issue of jurisdiction was never raised before the respondent no. 2 and as such, the petitioner is now estopped from raising the maintainability of the proceeding before the Commissioner. It is further submitted that in spite of the repeated opportunities, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 and as such, the impugned order was rightly passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation after condoning the delay by applying its judicious mind under proviso to section 10 of the Act. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction and also on the ground that the claim of the respondent no. 3 was barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the notification dated 06.12.1995, which has been issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar in exercise of power conferred under subsection (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 1923. In the said notification, it has been provided that the entire claim petition shall be filed before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation for uncontested cases and in case it becomes contested, those will be transferred to the respective presiding officers of the Labour Courts as ex-officio Commissioner for the Workmen''s Compensation for disposal. 7. In the case of " Branch Manager, United India v. Most. Sujata Devi" reported in 2014 (1) PLJR 27 , a Bench of Patna High Court held as under: "8. So far the jurisdiction of Deputy Labour Commissioner is concerned in a decision reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 803; M/S. Raj Kishan Company v. The State of Bihar and others , this Court has held that it is the Presiding Officer of Labour Court who has the jurisdiction to adjudicate when the claim is contested. The Deputy Labour Commissioner is not competent to decide such a dispute. In another decision reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 722 ; Mostt Parmada Devi v. Sri vishwanath Singh , this Court again has held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-Cum-Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter when the employer contested the claim case. The Deputy Labour Commissioner is not competent to decide such a dispute. In another decision reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 722 ; Mostt Parmada Devi v. Sri vishwanath Singh , this Court again has held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-Cum-Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter when the employer contested the claim case. Relying upon these decisions this Court recently in a decision reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 141; Oriental Insurance Company v. Ram Pyara Paswan , again held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide the contested matter." 8. From perusal of the aforesaid notification and judgment rendered in the case of "Branch Manager, United India v. Most. Sujata Devi" (supra), it is clear that the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Once a contest was set up at the instance of the petitioner, he was under legal obligation to refer the matter to the Labour Court having jurisdiction over the matter for adjudication. On perusal of the show-cause of the petitioner filed before the respondent no. 2, it appears that the petitioner had specifically denied the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3. The petitioner had also denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondent no. 3. Thus, the petitioner had contested the case before the respondent no. 2 and as such, the respondent no. 2 ought to have transferred the case to the concerned Labour Court for adjudication, but the respondent no. 2 entertained the claim and decided the same on merit. Thus, the learned Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation exceeded his jurisdiction while deciding the case on merit. The contention of the respondent no. 3 that the issue of jurisdiction was never raised earlier by the petitioner cannot be accepted as the petitioner had contested the case before the respondent no. 2 by filing the show-cause and once such a contest was set up, the learned Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation was bound in law to refer the matter to the appropriate Labour Court for further adjudication. 9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Hazaribagh in W.C. Case No. 61 of 2009 being without jurisdiction, is quashed and set aside. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.