LI Network
Published on: January 3, 2024 at 15:19 IST
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently affirmed the authority of a Labour Commissioner to reassess ex-parte orders under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The Court specified that under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Labour Commissioner possesses the competency to reevaluate ex-parte awards, as stipulated in Rule 31 of the J&K Workmen’s Compensation Rules of 1972.
This clarification came during a case where Sahil Gupta, the owner of M/S B. D. Security Pvt. Ltd., contested an ex-parte Award granted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
The issue arose from a conflict between Gupta and Masooda, the claimant, following the death of Masooda’s son, who was working as a guard for Gupta’s company.
The Labour Commissioner awarded compensation to Masooda through an ex-parte process, prompting Gupta to seek its annulment, which was dismissed.
Gupta’s counsel, Farhat Zia Soharwardy, argued that the Labour Commissioner lacked jurisdiction over the case, contending that the deceased’s situation should have fallen under the purview of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC).
The contention also revolved around the improper service of summons and the subsequent rejection of the application to set aside the ex-parte Award.
The Court highlighted that according to the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the Commissioner’s order is appealable before the High Court within 60 days on a substantial question of law, upon depositing the amount payable under the order.
Observing Gupta’s attempt to bypass this by filing a writ petition, the court stressed that in the presence of a statutory appeal, the writ jurisdiction is not typically invoked.
While acknowledging the availability of a statutory appeal, the court addressed procedural flaws and noted Rule 41 of the J&K Workmen’s Compensation Rules, which incorporates provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order IX Rule 13.
This rule allows for setting aside ex-parte decrees under specific conditions, granting parties the opportunity to address any procedural errors.
The bench opined that the Commissioner erred in dismissing Gupta’s application without assessing its merits.
The Court emphasized that Rule 41 empowers the Commissioner to review ex-parte decisions considering the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Consequently, the Court partially allowed the petition, instructing the Commissioner to reconsider the application’s merits and stayed the recovery notice against Gupta until a final decision is reached.
