AMESHBHAI SHANTILAL TRIVEDI Vs. BHAGVANSINH UDESINH CHAVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Ex-Officio Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Nadiad, in Workmen Compensation (Misc.) Application No.12 of 2017 in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No.1 of 2007 dtd. 29/3/2019.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Pandya, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the W.C. Commissioner requires to be quashed and set aside as the petitioner had no knowledge about the proceedings of W.C. (Fatal) Case No.1 of 2017 due to non-representation of his case by the representative appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court, therefore the delay has caused which is required to be condoned. He has further submitted that the petitioner has not filed the restoration application with any mala fide intention, hence the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Asthavadi, appearing for the legal heirs of respondent No.1 has submitted that this petition need not be entertained, since the petitioner right from the beginning after the decision of the Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation Act in Misc. Application No.07 of 2012 in W.C.Application No.01 of 2007 dtd. 13/6/2012, has not complied with the same and has also not paid any amount, even after the issuance of recovery certificate. He has further submitted that each and every stage, there has been delay by the present petitioner, hence the writ petition may not be entertained.