ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SAROJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is filed u/S 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the order of the Commissioner dated 15.01.2014 whereby the Commissioner allowed the application u/S 4A of the Act by awarding interest and penalty.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant was not served the notice in the application filed under Section 4A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by which penalty and interest was claimed.

(3.) However, I note that as per para 3 of the impugned order appellant who was one of the respondents is said to have been served but did not appear in spite of service. Therefore, if the contention of the counsel for the appellant is correct the remedy of the appellant will not be by means of filing of an appeal u/S 30 of the Act in this Court but to apply for review or recall of the order on the ground that the impugned order is an exparte order without serving the appellant. Since therefore the averment made in the appeal is not as per the impugned order, para 3 of which specifically mentions that the appellant has been served and this statement of fact as mentioned in the impugned order has not been challenged by means of filing an application before the Commissioner, I reject the contention that the appellant was not served.