Patna High Court - Orders
Divisional Manager, National ... vs Ismail Khan & Ors on 16 December, 2013
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.990 of 2010
======================================================
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Shanti Market,
Charch Road, North of Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Gaya
represented through Shri Anjani Kumar working as A.O. and duly
constituted attorney of National Insurance Company having its Regional
Office at 4th Floor, Sone Bhawan, P.S. Sachiwalaya, District- Patna.
.... Opposite Party No.1 .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Ismail Khan, son of late Abdul Razak Khan of Village- Shri Sanichak,
P.S.- Magadh University, Both Gaya, District- Gaya.
2. Sabiya Khatoon, wife of Ismail Khan, resident of Village- Shri
Sanichak, P.S. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya.
.....Applicants......Respondents 1st Set.
3. Abdul Manan Khan, son of Md. Jamaluddin Khan, resident of Village-
Sihuli, P.S.- Amas, District- Gaya (Owner of the Truck its bearing
Reg. No.UP-67T-0938).
....Opposite Party No.2 .... Respondent 2nd Set.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
5 16-12-2013Re: I.A. No.10379 of 2010:
This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay of eight days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application the prayer is allowed and the delay is condoned.
I.A. No.10379 of 2010 is allowed. Re: M.A. No.990 of 2010:
Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company. Despite service Patna High Court MA No.990 of 2010 (5) dt.16-12-2013 2 of notice on the respondents they have not chosen to appear.
This appeal under section 30 (1) (A) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.9.2010 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-
Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Magadh Division Gaya in C.W.C. No.13 of 2009, whereby the claim has been allowed.
The claim case in question had been filed by the parents of the deceased following his death in a road accident. The deceased was a Khalasi in a truck bearing Registration No.UP-67T-0938. Following the issuance of notice the insurance company as well as the employer appeared and contested the claim case and which has been allowed.
A very short submission has been made by Mr. Shailendra Kumar to contest the award relying upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 780 (Oriental Insurance Company vs. Nirmala Saran) and another Bench decision of this Court reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 722 (Most. Parmada Devi vs. Sri Bishwanath Singh). It is submitted that a moment the claim is contested the matter requires to be adjudicated by the labour court and not the Deputy Labour Patna High Court MA No.990 of 2010 (5) dt.16-12-2013 3 Commissioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the materials on record as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel which categorically holds that all contested matter is to be adjudicated by the Presiding Officer of the labour court and not the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Mr. Shailendra Kumar while making such submission has also very fairly submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of Nirmala Saran (Supra) as well as in the case of Most. Parmada Devi (Supra) has since been doubted and referred to a larger Bench but in absence of any stay order passed by the Division Bench the said judgment continues to hold the field.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record including the judgments relied upon by learned counsel and also considering the fact that despite being referred to a larger Bench no stay order has been passed in respect thereof, I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served to keep this appeal pending and thereby delay the matter for adjudication.
For the reasons aforementioned the judgment and order dated 25.9.2010 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner -cum- Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Patna High Court MA No.990 of 2010 (5) dt.16-12-2013 4 Magadh Division, Gaya in C.W.C. No.13 of 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to be placed before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court for its consideration and disposal afresh and in accordance with law after due notice and hearing to the contesting parties.
This appeal is allowed.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-