RAJAN G. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, a true copy of which is produced as Ext. P4. An award has been passed against the petitioner for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/ - to be realised from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the matter had been pending for a very long time before the first respondent and, the award has been passed for an amount higher than what was claimed by the applicant. Due to the delay, the interest part of the award would work out to a huge sum of money for the reason that the matter had been pending for about 11 years. Therefore, it is contended that the alternative remedy available under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not efficacious enough inasmuch as the petitioner would have to deposit the entire award amount as a condition for maintaining the appeal. It is also contended that the award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record justifying interference at the hands of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Since the jurisdictional fact viz., the employer -employee relationship itself is disputed and the finding thereon is based on no evidence, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy me as to why he has not been able to take recourse to the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The reason that the award amount would have to be deposited in full as a condition for maintaining the appeal, cannot be accepted as a ground for holding that the remedy by way of an appeal is not equally efficacious. The petitioner would have to comply with the said condition and file an appeal stipulated by the statute. It would certainly be open to the petitioner to obtain appropriate orders to ensure that the amount deposited is not disbursed to the legal representatives of the deceased workman. For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed, relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy available to him.