THANGAVEL Vs. SAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court questioning the ex parte order dated 4.5.2001 made in W.C.No.58 of 1997 and the consequential order dated 6.9.2001 passed by the fourth respondent in refusing to set aside the ex parte order.

(2.) The first respondent approached the fourth respondent, the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Salem claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him and the consequential removal of his right hand while he was in service with the petitioner. In the said petition, though notice was issued to the petitioner and the third respondent, they did not file any counter. The fourth respondent on considering the fact that the notice was served and the petitioner and third respondent remained absent, passed an ex parte order for payment of Rs.1,20,263/- to be paid by the petitioner and the third respondent. As against the said ex parte order, a petition was filed to set aside the said order which was dismissed on the ground that on an earlier occasion also, though the petition to set aside the ex parte order was allowed, again there was no representation for the petitioner and the ex parte order was passed. The commissioner also noted that the case was pending for four years.

(3.) At the time of hearing the writ petition, a preliminary objection was raised by Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent by contending that as against the impugned order, the petitioner has got an effective remedy of civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Without resorting to such remedy the petitioner has filed the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.