NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HULIGEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order Annexure A dated 29. 10. 2003, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner, koppal ('the Commissioner' for short) has rejected the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner under Order 9, rule 13, civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the award Annexure B dated 31. 10. 2000 passed in W. C. No. 24/2001/1992.

(2.) THE records disclose that one Ram-anna, son of the respondent No. 1 herein, died on 6. 7. 1997 during the course and out of employment in the establishment of respondent No. 2 herein. As such, respondent no. 1 herein filed claim petition before the workmen's Compensation Commissioner, koppal in W. C. A. CWC/f. 24 of 1998, who passed an award in favour of claimant granting the compensation of Rs. 2,26,380 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The petitioner insurance company, thereafter, filed petition under order 9, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, read with rule 41 of Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) praying for setting aside the said award dated 31. 10. 2000 mainly on the ground that the Divisional manager is not served with notice as he was not made party before the Commissioner and that the notices were served only on Branch Manager of the insurance company. As aforesaid, the said petition filed by the petitioner is rejected by the commissioner.

(3.) MR. B. C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioner strenuously submitted that the insurance company should have been represented by the Divisional Manager, who is the appropriate authority, but not the Branch Manager and as such, the notice, though served on the branch Manager is not a valid service of notice; that thus the petitioner could not represent before the Commissioner and put forth its case effectively; consequently the impugned award is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that rule 41 of the Rules provides for application of Order 9 of Civil procedure Code, to the proceedings before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of Workmen's compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and that, therefore, the Commissioner should have exercised his jurisdiction on merits; that the Commissioner is not justified in rejecting the said application filed under Order 9, rule 13 of civil Procedure Code, on the ground of want of jurisdiction. He further submitted that as no appeal is provided against the order passed on the application filed under order 9, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, by the Commissioner, this writ petition is maintainable.