Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 605 (MP)

Chetak Enterprises Ltd. v. Sangita Devi

2023-06-13

ANAND PATHAK

body2023
ORDER 1. With consent heard finally. 2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 27.3.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Employee Compensation Act, Labour Court No.2 Gwalior, whereby an application under Order IX rule 13 of the CPC preferred at the instance of petitioner has been rejected. 3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company engaged in road construction business and husband of respondent No.1 namely Khushiram Bhadouriya was working with the petitioner/company. During construction activities, he sustained some injuries and succumbed to those injuries which precipitated the filing of application under sections 4 (iv-a), 10, 22 of the Act at the instance of legal representatives of deceased Khushiram Bhadouriya. Labour Court, Gwalior considered the case and award dated 7.3.2022 has been passed in favour of the respondents and awarded amount of Rs.7,25,480/- and Rs.3,62,740/- as penalty. The said amount is to be paid with the interest @ 12% as referred in the said award. 4. It appears that the petitioner did not appear before the Labour Court despite being served, therefore, Labour Court proceeded ex-parte. However; coming to know about passing of such order, an application under Order IX rule 13 of the CPC was preferred but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.3.2023, therefore, this petition has been preferred. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to bonafide reason during COVID-19 pendamic situation, petitioner could not appear before the Labour Court. Moment he realized passing of order by the Labour Court, he moved an application under Order IX rule 13 of the CPC without delay, but the same was rejected. He is ready to compensate the respondents by depositing 25% of the decreetal award and referred the point that employee was ensured by the petitioner, therefore, if insurance company (United India Insurance Company Ltd.) is impleaded as party respondent, then things would be easier for the respondents because in that condition insurance company would reimburse the money awarded by the Labour Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer, however; considering the offer so made, extends no objection because some amount is given directly to the respondents for survival. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 8. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer, however; considering the offer so made, extends no objection because some amount is given directly to the respondents for survival. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 8. This is a case where petitioner was defendant in the Labour Court but because of COVID-19 pandemic situation, petitioner could not appear before the Labour Court and Labour Court proceeded ex-parte. Absence of petitioner was bonafide in the nature. 9. Considering the undertaking of the petitioner to deposit 25% amount to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- which would be a great respite for family members of the deceased Khushiram Bhadouriya and a hope is raised to get the amount back and be reimbursed by the Insurance Company and it would be the win - win situation for petitioner and respondents both. 10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed. Orders dated 7.3.2022 and 27.3.2023 are hereby set aside. Petitioner has to deposit 25% amount to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- within two months from date of passing of this order. This would be the condition precedent for petitioner to appear before the Labour Court. 11. Respondents shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 24.7.2023. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed in above terms.