ISSAC THOMAS Vs. CHELLAPPAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, impugning Ext.P3 award issued by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in favour of the 1st respondent herein. There are two limbs of challenge in this writ petition: the first being against the virus of the 3rd proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; and the second being against the validity of Ext.P3 order.

(2.) As regards the 1st limb of the challenge is concerned, it have now been declared by this Court in Narayanan Nair v. Union of India [1990 (1) KLT 907] and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Rahimkan v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation) and Others [1997(2) CTC 558] that the impugned Section is valid in law and that it is constitutional.

(3.) Therefore, all that survives for my consideration now is the validity of Ext.P3 order. The singular challenge impelled by the petitioner against Ext.P3 is that it has been issued without notice to him. He says that the 1st respondent herein did not appear for five consecutive postings before the 2nd respondent Commissioner and that it was adjourned to 27.11.2001 and thereafter, to 18.12.2001, on which date also he did not appear; constraining the learned Commissioner to dismiss the application. The petitioner says that thereafter it appears that the matter was restored by the Commissioner and allowed through Ext.P3; but without issuing any notice to him.