Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 552 (HP)

Bharat Singh Thakur v. Amartex Industries Ltd.

2020-09-01

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the case at hand, this Court sees no need to issue notice to the respondents and as such the same is dispensed with . 2. Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lays challenge to orders dated 29.11.2016 and 25.8.2017, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division No.1), Rohru in CMP No. 363/6 of 2016 and CMP No. 148/6 of 2016, whereby applications having been filed by petitioner-claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') under Section 151 CPC as well as under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC, praying therein for revival of claim petition filed under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act and for setting aside ex parte order dated 29.11.2016 came be dismissed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned orders, this Court finds that in the year 2008 petitioner filed claim petition (Annexure P-1) under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act on account of injury sustained by him, during his employment with respondent-Company. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No.1) exercising the powers of Employees Compensation Commissioner after having perused the record arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident which took place at Faridabad (Haryana) and as such in view of mandate of Proviso to Section 21(1), it is necessary to call for response/no objection from the concerned Employment Commissioner and accordingly vide order dated 31.3.2014, Annexure P-1 (Page 91 of the paper book) directed the Civil Alhmad to send correspondence to learned Employees Compensation Officer, Faridabad (Haryana) to seek his response. While passing aforesaid direction, Court specifically directed Civil Ahlmad to place the petition either before him or Presiding Officer as and when the correspondence is received. Besides above, Court also reserved liberty to the petitioner to proceed further, if concerned Employees Compensation Officer states its no objection in reference to above correspondence sent in terms of order dated 31.3.2014. While passing aforesaid direction, Court specifically directed Civil Ahlmad to place the petition either before him or Presiding Officer as and when the correspondence is received. Besides above, Court also reserved liberty to the petitioner to proceed further, if concerned Employees Compensation Officer states its no objection in reference to above correspondence sent in terms of order dated 31.3.2014. However, it appears that till 2014 either no response, if any, from Employment Commissioner, Faridahad (Haryana) was received or Civil Alhmad of the Court concerned failed to place the matter before Court concerned and as such petitioner by way of application under Section 151 of CPC (available at paper book No.31) sought direction to Civil Alhmad to place the case before Court so that further proceedings are initiated. Zimni orders placed on record reveal that such application remained pending adjudication for more than one year and on 29.11.2016 (Annexure P-4), the same came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on account of absence of claimant or his counsel. After passing of aforesaid order, claimant again filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC, praying therein for restoration of aforesaid application filed by him for revival of the claim petition but the same was also dismissed on 25.8.2017, Annexure P-6. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for quashment of aforesaid impugned orders and direction to the Court below to proceed with the claim petition which is pending adjudication since the year 2008. 4. Having carefully perused zimni orders, placed on record, this Court finds that since his counsel despite repeated opportunities failed to put in appearance, application having been filed by him came to be dismissed for non prosecution. 4. Having carefully perused zimni orders, placed on record, this Court finds that since his counsel despite repeated opportunities failed to put in appearance, application having been filed by him came to be dismissed for non prosecution. But having carefully perused order dated 31.3.2014, whereby Civil Alhlad was directed to send correspondence to learned Employees Compensation Officer, Faridabad to seek his response in view of Proviso to Section 21(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, this Court is of the view that it was duty cast upon Civil Alhmad vide aforesaid order to place the petition before Court concerned as and when such correspondence is received but as has been taken note herein above, it appears that either no response was received from Employees Compensation Commissioner, Faridabad or Civil Alhmad failed to place the matter before Court concerned, however, claimant after having waited for almost one year filed an application under Section 151 CPC, praying therein for revival of the petition but same was dismissed for non prosecution. This Court is of the view that Court below immediately after having received aforesaid application filed by claimant should have called for the report from Civil Alhmad with regard to correspondence, if any, made by him to the Employees Compensation Officer, Faridabad in terms of order dated 31.3.2014 and there was no requirement to keep that application pending, rather Court on the same day ought to have called for the report and proceeded with the matter. However, in the case at hand Court below for no cogent and convincing reason wasted more than one year to decide such application and thereafter dismissed the same for non prosecution. Since by way of aforesaid application a very innocuous prayer to revive the claim petition was made, it is not understood why same was repeatedly adjourned. 5. Interestingly, till date Court below has not bothered to ascertain compliance made by Civil Alhmad pursuant to order dated 31.3.2014, rather claim petition having been filed by claimant in the year 2008 has been virtually allowed to die its own death. Once Court had taken cognizance of the matter in the year 2008 and thereafter vide order dated 31.3.2014 had called for the report of Employment Commissioner Officer, Faridabad it should have ensured that the claim petition is decided in accordance with law in time bound manner. Once Court had taken cognizance of the matter in the year 2008 and thereafter vide order dated 31.3.2014 had called for the report of Employment Commissioner Officer, Faridabad it should have ensured that the claim petition is decided in accordance with law in time bound manner. Though having noticed aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court would have passed strictures against Presiding Judge but since case at hand came to be dealt with by various Presiding Officers in last 12 years, this Court refrains itself from passing any harsh order at this stage, however, this Court hopes and trusts that Court below would make all out efforts to dispose of the present application, expeditiously. 6. Consequently, in view of above, impugned orders dated 29.11.2016 and 25.8.2017 are quashed and set aside and Court below is directed to proceed with the matter in terms or order dated 31.3.2014 forthwith. Learned counsel representing petitioner undertakes to cause presence of claimant or his counsel on 14.9.2020 before the Court below enabling it to proceed with the matter further in accordance with law. Registry to apprise the Court below with regard to the passing of instant order enabling it to do the needful within stipulated time. Petition stands disposed of along with all pending applications, if any.