FARM SUPERINTENDENT, UTTARAKHAND SAINIK PUNARVAS SANSTHAN, PATTHARCHATTA, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR Vs. GYANWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, on delay condonation application and perused the record.

(2.) PERUSAL of record shows that the respondent filed claim petition before Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The Court below granted several opportunities to the appellant but he did not appear, therefore, his right to produce evidence was closed vide order dated 27.4.2007 and the claim petition was decided exparte vide order dated 31.12.2007. The appellant also preferred review application for reviewing the order dated 31.12.2007 and the same was dismissed by the court below on 24.7.2010.

(3.) IT is admitted case of the appellant that the impugned order was an exparte order. The remedy available with the appellant was either to file appeal or to move application before the trial court to set aside the exparte order.