Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) vs Poorandei W/o Late Shri Mansingh, R/o Nagla Odi Mazra

Shyam Sundar S/o Shri Kashiram, R/o Village Pasoda, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) Satish S/o Shri Kashiram, R/o Village Pasoda, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) Omprakash S/o Shri Kashiram, R/o Village Pasoda, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) Versus ----Petitioners Poorandei W/o Late Shri Mansingh, R/o Nagla Odi Mazra Village Khanuwa, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) Omprakash S/o Late Shri Mansingh, R/o Nagla Odi Mazra Village Khanuwa, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) Satyaprakash Alias Lohare S/o Late Shri Mansingh, R/o Nagla Odi Mazra Village Khanuwa, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) Rama D/o Late Shri Mansingh, R/o Nagla Odi Mazra Village Khanuwa, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment Reserved on 18/08/2025 Pronounced on 20 /08/2025

1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, humbly and most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and impugned order dated 06.06.2025 (Annex- 6) passed by Learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Bharatpur in Case No. 08/2022 titled as Keshav alias Bhura & Ors. Vs. Poorandei & Ors. may kindly be quashed and set aside and allowed an application dated 11.05.2022 filed by the Petitioner Non Claimants for quashing the Ex Parte order dated 31.12.2019 as well as Ex Parte judgment dated 08.02.2020 passed by Learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Bharatpur." [2025:RJ-JP:32308] (2 of 5) [CW-12294/2025]

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a petition under Section 10/22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') against the petitioners on 12.01.2011, wherein, after due service of notices, petitioners have filed their reply on 10.08.2011, wherein, it was stated that deceased Mansingh was not under employment of the petitioners and there is no relation of employer-employee inter-se them. Moreover, the petitioners have denied the averments made in the claim petition. Thereafter, as learned counsel for the petitioners neither marked appearance before the concerned Court nor informed the petitioners, resulting in passing of an ex-parte order dated 31.12.2019 and ex-parte judgment dated 08.02.2020. Thereafter, when recovery warrants were issued against the petitioners, they moved an application with a prayer to set aside the ex- parte order and judgment before the learned Commissioner Workmens’ Compensation, however, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 06.06.2025. Hence, the present petition is filed.

3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that impugned judgment dated 08.02.2020 as well as impugned order dated 06.06.2025 are arbitrary and ought to be set aside, for the reason that the same are passed in violation of the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act and principle of natural justice.

4. It was further submitted that learned trial Court had only considered the evidence produced by the respondents and had not considered the reply of the petitioners, thereby committing a serious error. [2025:RJ-JP:32308] (3 of 5) [CW-12294/2025]

5. Further, it was submitted that there was no employer- employee relationship inter-se the petitioners and the respondents, therefore, there is no applicability of provisions of the Act. Furthermore, it was submitted that due to the negligence of the counsel representing the petitioners therein, they were unable to adduce their evidence before the learned trial Court.

7. Heard and considered. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and upon assiduous perusal of the impugned judgment dated 08.02.2020 and material available on record, this Court has made the following observations:-

7.1 That on 20.11.2009, while operating the ‘Kutta’ machine, the deceased, Man Singh, sustained grievous injuries leading to the amputation of his right hand, and owing to excessive blood loss, he succumbed to the said injuries on

09.12.2009 during the course of his treatment in the hospital.

7.2. That the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and was aged approximately 40 years. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by his legal heirs, pursuant to which notices were duly issued to the petitioners via registered post with acknowledgment due. The petitioners entered their appearance and filed their reply, denying the averments made in the claim petition. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed the issues for adjudication namely, reason of death, age and salary of the deceased at the time of accident, qua the number of dependents and whether petitioners are liable for penalty, if failed to pay compensation.

7.3. That the learned Trial Court observed that, owing to the continuous absence and non-cooperation of the petitioners herein, [2025:RJ-JP:32308] (4 of 5) [CW-12294/2025] orders were passed for taking action against them. Thereafter, despite the grant of multiple opportunities, the arguments of the respondents herein were heard, and upon meticulous consideration of the evidence and facts on record, the claim petition was adjudicated.

8. Taking note of the aforementioned, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court by invoking the doctrine of non-traverse which treats uncontroverted or unchallenged pleadings as deemed admissions, and applying the principle of best judgment assessment, whereby a decision is rendered on the basis of the available material in the absence of effective participation by the opposite party, proceeded to pass an appropriate order.

9. Further, learned Commissioner Workmens’ Compensation/ Appellant authority, had also held/affirmed that the impugned judgment was not passed in an ex-parte manner rather same is passed invoking the principle of best judgment assessment.

10. That neither the petitioners nor their counsel had shown due diligence or taken earnest steps for a considerable period to advance arguments, and the impugned order dated

08.02.20202 was assailed in the year 2022 i.e., with a significant delay. Moreover, no grievance was ever raised before the appropriate forum with respect to the alleged dereliction of duty on the part of their advocate.

11. That the claimants/respondents are deprived of compensation from a period of approximately 16 years.

12. That the impugned judgment was not passed in an ex- parte manner for the reason that notices were duly served upon [2025:RJ-JP:32308] (5 of 5) [CW-12294/2025] the petitioners herein and multiple opportunities were granted to contest the matter. Moreover, no sufficient ground for absence of counsel or party was shown when the case was called. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the present petition.

13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any shall stand disposed of. Pooja /17 (SAMEER JAIN),J