SASHIN AND COMPANY Vs. RUPA UKA SAKARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr P.J. Kanabar, learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 7.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 2011. The Appellant challenged the ex-parte order passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Labour Court, Surendra nagar in Misc. Application No. 3 of 2009 dated 31.8.2010. The Commissioner had decided Workmen Compensation (Non-fatal) Case No. 106 of 1993 by order dated 26.7.2002 against the Appellant with a direction to pay Rs. 97,320/- with a penalty of Rs. 48,660/-, the total of which comes to Rs. 1,45,980/- with 6% interest with effect from 19.6.1991. This amount was to be deposited by the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receiving the order of the Commissioner.

(2.) Mr P.J. Kanabar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has urged that the learned Single Judge has touched the question on merits of the case. He has further urged that the Doctor was not examined to prove the disability and notices were not served on the Appellant as there was no signature of the Appellant on the acknowledgement. We find that the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for recording the finding that the notices were served on the Appellant but the Appellant failed to lead any oral or documentary evidence that the notices were not served or the signature on the acknowledgement was not of the Appellant or of its employee. So far as the examination of the Doctor is concerned, we are of the opinion that it was not necessary in a matter which proceeded ex-parte against the Appellant. The Commissioner was satisfied about the injury mentioned in the certificate, came to the conclusion that it was a case of 100% disability as the Respondent was not able to stand up for more than 5 to 10 minutes. So far as the last argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant on touching the question on merit of the case is concerned, the learned Counsel argued the question on merit of the case and it was the legal duty of the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge to deal with the arguments of the Counsel for the Appellant while deciding the case.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, we agree with the order dated 7.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1401 of 2011 as well as of the Commissioner. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.