IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR 121 M/s Hare Kris Krishna v. Page 1 of 5 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7569-2024
Case Details
IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HAR 121 M/s Hare Kris Krishna Steels Smt. Sadhna na & Others Vs. Page 1 of 5 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7569-2024(O&M) Date of order: 07.01.2025 (s) …..Petitioner(s) (s) …..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Surinder Kumar Virk, for the petitioner. Advocate ta, J. Nidhi Gupta, J ***** Challenge in the present p ed nt petition is to the order dated 29.04.2024 (A 4 (Annexure P1) passed by the lea by learned Commissioner, whereby the applicatio ation of the petitioner for setting 22 ing aside order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P2) P2) and ex-parte Award dated 29.0 ed 29.04.2022 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned rned Commissioner under Employe , loyee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-II, Pani Panipat, is dismissed; AND for of for allowing the application of petitioner (An (Annexure P4) filed before the learn learned Commissioner. 2. Learned counsel for the he the petitioner submits that the impugned ord orders deserve to be set aside as t as as the learned Commissioner has failed to appre ppreciate that the petitioner was un 22 s unable to appear on 25.04.2022 as inadvertent rtently the counsel for the petitione ng tioner had noted down the wrong date in the ca e case. It is argued that accordingl gly ingly, the petitioner was wrongly proceeded ag against ex-parte; and therefore, he re, in the interest of justice, the impugned ex ex-parte order dated 25.04.2022 rte 022 (Annexure P2) and ex-parte SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Award dated ted 29.04.2022 (Annexure P3), and 24 and the order dated 29.04.2024 Page 2 of 5 (Annexure P1) P1) passed by the learned Commiss missioner, be set aside. 3. 4. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned cou nd counsel for the petitioner and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 5. Brief facts of the the case are that he the claimants/resp /respondents herein had filed a clai n 4 claim application under Section 4 of the Employ ployee’s Compensation Act (herein t”) reinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the p e petitioner on the ground that ok hat the deceased namely Ashok Kumar/husban sband of respondent No.1 and fath 3, father of respondents No.2 and 3, was working
Legal Reasoning
ing in the petitioner’s shop/firm. O ar m. On 18.08.2017, Ashok Kumar had suffered h ed heart attack due to heavy work ed ork in the shop; and had expired thereafter. As . As such, the respondents had filed ion filed claim petition under Section 4 of the Act b ct before the learned Commission he sioner. On 25.04.2022, when the matter was fi as fixed before the learned Comm he ommissioner for evidence of the claimants, non , none had appeared on behalf of ide f of the petitioner. As such, vide order dated ed 25.04.2022 (Annexure P2), th ed , the petitioner was proceeded against ex pa x parte. Subsequently, after conc rte onclusion of evidence, ex parte Award dated ted 29.04.2022 (Annexure P4), was er. was passed against the petitioner. Intimation in in respect of this Award was on was sent to the petitioner on 04.05.2022. T 2. Thereafter, the petitioner had on had filed present application on 28.11.2022 (A 2 (Annexure P4) for setting as ed aside ex parte order dated 25.04.2022; an 2; and for setting aside order dated rte ated 26.04.2022 whereby ex parte SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document evidence of th of the claimants was concluded; and rd ; and for setting aside final Award Page 3 of 5 dated 29.04.2 .04.2022. Upon notice, the resp uly respondents/claimants had duly appeared and and filed reply; whereupon vide ed vide the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 (A 4 (Annexure P1), the said applicati en ication of the petitioner has been dismissed. Hen . Hence, the present revision petitio tition. 6. A perusal of the applicati he ication (Annexure P4) as also the present petitio etition as also during the hearing a nt ing at the Bar, the only argument raised by the the petitioner is that he was unabl as nable to appear on 25.04.2022 as the learned c d counsel for the petitioner had te. ad noted down the wrong date. However, ther there is no information whatsoever rd ever forthcoming from the record as to what w was the ‘wrong’ date noted by he by the counsel representing the petitioner bef before the learned Commissioner. ry, ner. Even on a direct Court query, the ld.counsel nsel for the petitioner is unable to his le to give any information in this respect. As su s such, this casts a shadow of doubt he oubt on the sole plea raised by the petitioner. 7. The above plea of the peti om petitioner is further falsified from the fact that a hat as per the record, intimation in ed on in respect of the Award dated 29.4.2022 wa was sent to the petitioner on nt on 4.5.2022. However, present application (A (Annexure P4), for setting asid ed aside the ex-parte order dated 25.04.2022 (A 2 (Annexure P2) and ex-parte Award re ward dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P3) was receiv eceived in the Court of the ld. Com ost Commissioner by registered post only on 28.11. .11.2022. As per the provisions of t lar of the Limitation Act in particular as per Serial N ial No.119(b)(description of present ct, sent application) of Limitation Act, SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 5 an application tion for setting aside ex parte Aw 30 Award has to be filed within 30 days from the the date of Award. In the prese as resent case, such application has admittedly be y been filed after 197 days. A perusa re rusal of the application (Annexure P4) further r reveals that the petitioner has ny has even failed to mention any provisions of a of any Section or Rule of the Act u as ct under which the petitioner has filed the app application for setting aside ex ed ex parte order. The Learned Commissioner oner has also correctly noted that th ing at there is no provision for setting aside ex parte arte order on an application sent by of t by registered post. Reasoning of the learned C d Commissioner is recorded in Pa er in Para 7 of the impugned order which reads as ds as follows: - “7. I perused the the records of at s of the case and it reveals that exparteorder was passed on 25 rd n 25/4/2022 and exparte award was passed on 29/04/2022. The ent The case of applicant/respondent that the advocate of applicant/re ng nt/respondent noted down wrong date. It is duty of the applicant/re the nt/respondent to know about the day-to-day hearing of the t case, which the the applicant/respondent failed. Inte act Interestingly it is admitted fact that counsel for the applicant/re ire nt/respondent could not enquire about the present case even af hs. n after passing of four months. Secondly provisions of Limitation in tion Act is very well applicable in the present case and under Sr. of r Sr. No. 119 (b) (description of application) of Limitation Act, the ide t, the application for setting aside exparte award has to be filed ny iled within thirty days from any decree or order, but the ap ot applicant/respondent has not submitted the application of setti hin setting aside exparte order within 30 days. Applicant/respondent se ing nt send the application for setting aside exparte order by registered on tered post, which was received on 28/11/2022, through there is the is no procedure to send the SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5 application of setting aside expa en exparte order by post even then hearing on the application was co ter as conducted on 26/04/2023 after a gap of one year from the date der date of passing of exparte order dated 29/04/2022 when the cou ent counsel of applicant/respondent appeared before this Court, which ule hich is highly belated. Under Rule 39(2) of the Employees Compen the pensation Act, if a party to the proceedings, in default of so app to appearing he shall be deemed to admit the validity of any award ite ward made against the opposite party and to admit his own liabil ite liability to indemnify the opposite party for any compensation reco no recovered from him. There is no procedure under any law to send his end message or intimation by this hon'ble Court for the proceedi en eedings of the case even then intimation to this effect was sen on sent to applicant/respondent on 4/5/2022. The applicant/respond by pondent is being represented by his counsel in the said case and h the nd have full knowledge about the proceedings of the case.” 8. I find no infirmity in the ab ed e above reasoning of the learned Commissioner oner. As such, no ground is made ou ed e out to interfere in the impugned order. Present sent petition accordingly stands dism dismissed. 9. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 07.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether Whether her speaking/reasoned her reportable Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.09 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document