SHOBHADEVI DAMMANI Vs. RAMPYARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether an order rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC ') refusing to set aside award by Commissioner Employee 's Compensation is appealable under Section 30(1) (a) of the Employee 's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the E.C. Act ')?

(2.) INVOKING appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 30(1) (a) of the E.C. Act, the employee/appellant herein has filed this appeal, challenging the order dated 31/07/2002 passed by Commissioner for Employee 's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (for short 'Commissioner ') in Miscellaneous Case No. B -57/W.C.Act Fatal/2002, by which, her application under Oder9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code ') was rejected by learned Commissioner finding that no sufficient cause for setting -aside the ex parte award.

(3.) MR . Sachin Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing for appellant/ employer would submit that learned Commissioner has committed legal error in holding that no sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside ex parte decree. Mr. Rajput would further submit that appellant/employer had shown sufficient cause for not appearing when the case was called up for hearing, therefore, the award ex parte be set -aside and it be remitted for consideration afresh in accordance with law.