CYRIAC MATHEW KOTTAYAM Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exhibit P11 order passed by the 1st respondent, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kottayam in W.C.C No. 29/2001 dated September 26, 2001 is under challenge, as one passed without jurisdiction, and therefore null and void. Execution of such orders have been attempted by notice dated October 7, 2003 (Exhibit P15) and this also is subjected to attack. According to the petitioner, if at all anybody was liable, it should have been the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the 5th respondent herein for the accidental death of one Madhavan, whose legal representatives are the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein.

(2.) The 4th respondent is an establishment engaged in the business of textiles in Kottayam and petitioner refers to him as the principal employer. He had been awarded a contract for construction, for them. It is not disputed that Madhavan had sustained an accident on February 6, 2001 by a fall from the lift in the course of his employment. In the counter affidavit filed by the E.S.I. Corporation, it has been stated that only on a single day, that is the date of accident, he was so employed by the petitioners. That may be so. An application for compensation has been submitted under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the legal representatives. Written objections had been filed by the petitioner herein, who was the sole respondent to the proceedings. Parties had let evidence. The matter was taken up for orders after trial. Exhibit P11 indicates that the orders had been passed on September 26, 2001.

(3.) However, it seems that an Original Petition had been filed by the petitioner thereafter, pointing out that an application filed by him before the Commissioner for reopening the matter for impleading the principal employer and also for rendering a decision on the preliminary point about the maintainability of the application had not been taken notice of. Such petitions supported by affidavits are produced before this Court as Exhibit P4, P5, P6 etc. At the admission stage, this Court had dismissed the Original Petition and it may be necessary to extract paragraph (5) of the judgment hereunder. Paragraph (5) of judgment in O.P. No. 4397/2002: