MOHAMMAD IDRISH Vs. CHAGGA ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 3.2.1989, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Delhi whereby the application of the appellants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order directing the appellants to pay compensation to respondent no.1 was rejected. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are :

(2.) Respondent No.1 claiming himself to be an employee of the appellant firm as well as of respondent No.2 firm filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, claiming compensation for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by him during the course of employment with the said firms. In the application, respondent No.1 had not specified as to with which of the two firms was he employed and while working with which of the two firms he was allegedly injured. While Mohd. Idrish claims to be the sole proprietor of the appellant firm, respondent No.2 firm is stated to be a partnership firm of his sons with which he has nothing to do. On receipt of notice from the Commissioner, the son of the appellant appeared before him but later on he also stopped appearing and both the firms were proceeded ex parte and an ex parte order was passed against them to pay compensation. On coming to know of the ex parte order, appellants filed an application for setting aside the same. The application was dismissed by the impugned order, aggrieved by which the present appeal is filed.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellant was not served with the notice from the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and consequently no one had appeared before the Commissioner to defend the case on behalf of the appellant. Respondent no.1 as already mentioned had filed application claiming compensation not only against the appellants but also against respondent no.2, namely, New India Stationers, Chawari Bazaar, Delhi. The notice in the case was admittedly received by the son of the appellant. The sons of the appellant are partners in the firm being run under the name and style of New India Stationers and they have nothing to do with the firm M/s Mohd. Idrish and Sons of which Mohd. Idrish is the sole proprietor. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant, therefore is that as the son of the appellant had nothing to do with the firm Mohd. Idrish and sons and he was partner in the New India Stationers, his son had no authority to appear and represent the appellant before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation It was also the case of the appellant that he did not had good relations with his sons and rather their relations were strained. It is, therefore, submitted that as the appellants were not served with the notice from the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, the ex-parte order passed against the appellants was required to be set aside and an opportunity ought to have been given to the appellant to contest the application of respondent no.1 on merits. It is also contended that respondent No.1 could not claim to be the employee of two firms and the order passed against two firms was, in any case, bad and liable to be set aside.