M. NATARAJAN CHETTIAR Vs. M. GURUSAMY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in this writ appeal has filed Writ Petition No. 12764 of 1984 on the file of this Court to call for the records of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-II, Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Teynampet, Madras-6, to the second respondent herein relating to W.C. Case No. 1 1/13674 of 1983, i.e., 8447 of 1982, dated 19th July, 1984, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent herein to dispose of the compensation case on the merits. The said writ petition was disposed of by Shivappa, J., after hearing Counsel appearing on either side. The learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order dated 19th July, 1984, remitted the matter to the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-II, Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II Madras, for fresh disposal after due notice to M. Nataraja Chettiar, the second respondent therein, viz., employer, without taking much time and in any event to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The order in the said writ petition was made on 10th Nov., 1984. The employer (M. Nataraja Chettiar) challenging the said order, dated 10th Nov., 1984, has filed the present Writ Appeal No. 454 of 1995, before this Court, which came up before the summer vacation Court on 3rd May, 1995. The Division Bench of this Court directed the matter to be listed after summer vacation, viz., after the reopening of the Court. After the summer vacation, the matter was listed before the First Bench of this Court on 28th June, 1995, on which date notice of motion returnable by two weeks was ordered. Interim stay was also granted on 28th June, 1995, by this Court in C.M.P. No. 7044 of 1995. When the matter camp up for final hearing before this Court on 10th April, 1997, Mr. A.S. Chakravarthi, learned Counsel for the appellant was called absent. There was no representation either on behalf of the appellant/employer or by his Counsel. For further hearing and orders, the matter was directed to be listed on 21st April, 1997. Office was also directed to put up the C.M.P. No. 4205 of 1996 along with the affidavit. Even today both the appellant and his counsel, Mr. A.S. Chakravarthi, on record were called absent and Miss Anna Mathew, learned Counsel for the first respondent, was asked to argue the case and, accordingly, she argued the matter. Miss Anna Mathew, learned Counsel for the first respondent, first submitted that the appellant is guilty of having suppressed material facts from this Court. After the learned Judges order in writ petition, the second respondent in the writ appeal reopened the proceedings and held an inquiry after due notice to both the parties. The appellant participated in the inquiry held on six hearing dates from 29th March, 1995, to 8th May, 1995, and after completion of the enquiry, the second respondent had reserved orders on 8th May, 1995. This it is seen that the appellant had participated in the proceedings held by the second respondent without any reservation as to his rights in the writ appeal. However, he has filed the writ appeal, on 22nd March, 1995, and brought the same before the I vacation Court on 3rd May, 1995, and later before the First Bench of this Court on 28th June, 1995, viz., after the orders were reserved by the second respondent on 8th I May, 1995. Along with the present writ appeal, the appellant filed C.M.P. No. 7044 I of 1995, praying for the stay of the operation of the order in Writ Petition No. 12764 of 1984, dated 10th Nov., 1994, pending disposal of the writ appeal. In the affidavit, the appellant has not whispered anything about his participation in the inquiry conducted by the second respondent herein on six hearings. However, the appellant has raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition, since according to him, the Workmens Compensation Act (for short the Act) provides appeal remedy against the order in Workmens compensation case.

(2.) Instead of filing the appeal, the writ petition was filed to avoid the limitation prescribed in the said Act to file the appeal. We are of the view that the appellant is not justified in filing this writ appeal and raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition. Miss Anna Mathew, learned Counsel for the first respondent, raised an objection to this contention of the appellant that the question of maintainability was never urged before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The first respondent has also clearly stated so in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of C.M.P. No. 4205 of 1996. The appellant did not also file any counter-affidavit to the writ petition nor did he raise any objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition during the course of the hearing of the writ petition. The case relates to a claim for workmen compensation for an accident that took place on 22nd July, 1979. It is not as if the learned Single Judge has usurped the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act, but has merely remitted the matter back to the authority for proper adjudication of the case according to law. The learned Judge has exercised his discretionary jurisdiction in the interest of Justice. We are of the view that this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Letters Patent should refuse to interfere with such exercise of jurisdiction. As already stated, this writ appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts before this Court. The appellant has not mentioned anything about his participation in the various hearings before the second respondent and has obtained orders from this Court by suppressing the material facts. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench would not have ordered notice of motion and granted stay of the order of remittal. Therefore, the interim stay granted in C.M.P. No. 7044 of 1995 at the behest of the appellant without prior notice to the first respondent is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the interim stay granted by this Court has to be necessarily vacated. We do not find anything on merits in this writ appeal. The learned Judges have only ordered notice of motion and granted interim stay in the meanwhile. We have also gone through the order of the learned Single Judge, who on a detailed discussion of the matter came to the conclusion that the findings of the authorities under the relevant provisions of the Act are perverse and the explanation offered by the first respondent herein constitutes sufficient cause. Having come to such a conclusion, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge is correct in remitting the matter to the authorities under the Act for fresh disposal in accordance with law. There are no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 12764 of 1984. Therefore, this writ appeal fails and the same shall stand dismissed. The order of stay granted by this Court in C.M.P. No. 7044 of 1995 is vacated and C.M.P. No. 4205 of 1996 is ordered. In view of the final disposal of the writ appeal by this Court today, the second respondent, viz., the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-H (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II Teynampet, Madras), is directed to pronounce the order in W.C. Case No. B1/13674 of 198o,i.e., 8447 of 1982 (Res.). However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.