ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents.

(2.) IN an accident that occurred on 14/7/98, one Sri.Santhosh Kumar died. His legal representatives who are the respondents herein filed a claim under the Workmens Compensation Act against the employers of the deceased, one among whom is the appellant herein. Notice issued to the appellant was returned though his brother accepted notice and contested the matter. Thereupon, notice in so far as the appellant is concerned is published in the local dailies and finally on the appellant's failure to appear, he was set ex parte and Ext.P1 award was finally passed against the employers. Long thereafter, when recovery proceedings were initiated, appellant filed Ext.P2 IA to set aside the ex parte award and that application was rejected by Ext.P3 order of the Commissioner. Thereafter, when Ext.P4 demand notice was issued, the appellant filed the writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P1 award and Ext.P3 order. The writ petition having been dismissed by the learned single Judge, this appeal is filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the failure of the appellant to appear and contest the mater was not wilful and according to her, it was on account of the fact that the appellant was employed abroad. It is stated that at the earliest opportunity, they sought to set aside the award and that without any valid reason, the application was rejected.