Naseer Ahmad v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Srinagar

Judgment

1. Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under

3. Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against order dated

09.01.2025, passed by Respondent No.1-Deputy Labour

Commissioner, Srinagar (for short “the DLC”). None has appeared on behalf of respondents despite service, therefore, they are set ex-parte. Case of the petitioner is that he preferred a claim petition, for compensation, under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (“The Act” for short), before the DLC, against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the following reliefs:- “a) That by issuance of appropriate order or direction, respondents be directed to pay the claimant compensation to the tune of Rs.90,38,948/- with interest @ 12% from the date it has fallen due till actual payment; b) That by issuance of appropriate order or direction, respondents be directed to pay the penalty calculated at Rs.45,19,474/- for the default of employee compensation with interests @ 12% from the date it has fallen due till actual payment; 1 CM(M) No. 87/2025 c) That by issuance of appropriate order or directions, respondents be directed to pay the Medical and Treatment costs calculated at Rs.25.00 lacs with interests @ 12% from the date it has fallen due till actual payment; d) That by issuance of appropriate order or direction, respondents be directed to pay the litigation/legal costs calculated at Rs.50,000/- with interests @ 12% from the date it has fallen due till actual payment; e) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Commissioner may deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the claimant and against the respondents in the interest of justice and equity”.

4. According to the petitioner, since respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not choose to appear despite service, they were set ex-parte by DLC on

02.07.2024, and subsequently their application for setting aside ex- parte proceedings also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on

23.10.2024 and on the same day, their claim petition was heard and reserved for orders.

5. Since claim petition was not decided by the DLC for a considerable period of time, the petitioner came up with a petition, CM(M) No. 5/2025, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and this Court, vide order dated 03.01.2025 directed respondent No.1 to decide the claim petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date copy of order was made available. The said order, for the facility of reference reads as under:- “1. Petitioner through the medium of this petition moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks appropriate order or direction commanding the respondent-Deputy Labour Commissioner Srinagar to decide the claim petition titled “Naseer Ahmad vs J & K Handloom Development Corporation & Ors" and pronounce the judgment/order as expeditiously as possible not later than l5 days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed the claim petition in the month of March-2024, and after leading the evidence, the file has been reserved for orders on 23.10.2024, however, the judgment has not been delivered so far, whereas, as per Section 25 of the Employees Compensation Act, such claims are to be disposed of within three months. 2 CM(M) No. 87/2025 3 In view of the pleadings of the petitioner in this petition and those urged at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition in the considered opinion of this Court is not required to be kept on board for any further proceedings and is disposed of at this the respondent-Deputy Labour stage with a direction Commissioner Srinagar, who is statutory authority to decide the matter in the petition titled 'Naseer Ahmad vs J & K Handloom Development Corporation & Orso', expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, from the date copy of this order is made available to him. 4. Disposed of”.

6. It is contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the DLC instead of deciding the claim petition in accordance with the mandate of law contained under the Act, passed the impugned order, vide which, without commenting upon merits of the case, he forwarded his claim to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, with a direction to pay dues in his favour, within a period of thirty days from the date of issuance of the order.

7. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order, primarily, on the ground that it is non-speaking and cryptic because the DLC, without adverting to the claim petition filed by him and the evidence adduced in support thereof, has directed respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to pay the dues, without specifying the amount payable in his favour.

8. It is trite that any order, final or interim, passed by a Court, a tribunal or an adjudicatory authority, must speak and it should not be like an “inscrutable face of the Sphinx”, because recording of reasons in support of a decision, on a disputed claim, would ensure that the decision is not a result of fancy, but has been passed having due regard to the facts and circumstances attending the case and the relevant law obtaining the field. 3 CM(M) No. 87/2025

9. The petitioner in the claim petition, sought various reliefs from the contesting respondents, including compensation of Rs.90,38,948/- with interest, penalty of Rs.45,19,474/-, on account of default of employee compensation with interest, the medical expenditure calculated at Rs.25.00 lacs with interest and the litigation/legal costs calculated at Rs.50,000/- with interest. Since the claim of the petitioner was not decided by DLC for a considerable period of time, after it was reserved for orders, this Court directed the DLC, who is a statutory authority, to decide the petition with expedition, preferably within a period of four weeks. However, the DLC instead of adverting to the merits of the petition and having regard to the evidence brought on record by the petitioner, passed the buck and shifted liability upon the official respondents to pay his dues without specifying the amount, the petitioner is entitled to. The DLC has not bothered to record reasons in accepting the claim petition.

10. It needs a specific mention that the inevitability to document reasons is to prevent injury in reaching conclusions and disclose how mind was applied in substance of litigation. As stated earlier, every judicial order should contain sound reasons and if valid reasons are not found in the order, such an order becomes erroneous. In other words, if an order is informed of reasons, the person aggrieved has an opportunity to demonstrate that reasons were erroneous. What emanates from the impugned order is that DLC has failed to judicially sift the contentions, instinctively made in the claim petition. In view of various claims raised by the petitioner, the DLC was obliged to ask the petitioner to lead evidence and make out a case and thereafter, 4 CM(M) No. 87/2025 pass a reasoned and speaking order as to whether he was entitled to the relief sought for or not.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is found bad in law and is liable to be quashed. As a result, the present petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to Respondent No.1, the DLC for considering the matter afresh and dispose of the same with reasonable promptitude, by passing a speaking order and of course after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date copy of this order is made available.

12. Disposed of as above. (RAJESH SEKHRI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 26.03.2025 Manzoor Whether approved for reporting? Yes Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 04.04.2025 11:09 5 CM(M) No. 87/2025