B RAMAKRISHAN Vs. SARASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award dated 22.11.1993 made in Workmen's Compensation Case in W.C. No. 159 of 1992 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore-12, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 20152 of 1994. Against the order dated 30.9.1994 in LA. No. 9 of 1994 in W.C. No. 159 of 1992 on the file of the same authority, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 20153 of 1994.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, all of a sudden issued a legal notice dated 1.7.1992 contending that the husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by name P. Alagirisamy died on 20.5.1992 in the course of and arising out of his alleged employment with the petitioner as a quarry worker. The petitioner sent a reply notice dated 1.9.1992 repudiating the claim made by the respondent No.1. Even after the exchange of legal notices, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed the claim for Rs. 1,00,000 against the petitioner in W.C. No. 159 of 1992 under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. The criminal prosecution launched against him ended in acquittal with a finding that he was not the owner of the quarry in question. The claim filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4, namely, W.C. No. 159 of 1992, after few formal adjournments, the chief examination of the respondent No. 1, PW 1, was over on 30.3.1993 and the cross-examination of PW 1 was closed on 28.7.1993. The respondents took time for further evidence. But on 10.8.1993, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 abruptly reported no further evidence and hence the hearing was adjourned to competent court at Ooty on 24.8.93. However, the hearing did not take place subsequently on four occasions. On 26.10.93 (sic), the petitioner and his counsel wanted to set aside the ex pane order. It is seen from the order dated 22.11.1993 that on 26.10.1993, the petitioner was called and found absent and an ex pane order was passed. On 15.12.93, he had received compensation order dated 22.11.1993 which is impugned in the first writ petition. Immediately he filed I.A. No. 9 of 1994 to set aside the ex pane order dated 22.11.1993 and restore the case of enquiry. On 30.9.94, the application to set aside the ex pane order was dismissed on the ground that the compensation order is a merit order and petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 26.10.93 which is challenged in W.P. No. 20153 of 1994.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein have filed a detailed counter-affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is specifically stated that the petitioner herein was given an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and as a matter of fact, they had even cross-examined PW 1 and thereafter did not turn up to defend their case. In such circumstances, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, oral and documentary evidence let in on the side of the claimants, the respondent No. 5 herein on the basis of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, passed an award for Rs. 78,824. Inasmuch as the petitioner was given adequate and ample opportunity and in the absence of any contra evidence on his side, the authority has no other go; accordingly after being satisfied with these, passed tile impugned award. It is also stated that the said award is not an ex pane one, since the petitioner herein has filed a counter-affidavit, participated in the enquiry by cross-examining PW 1 ; accordingly, the order passed by the said authority on 30.9.1994 is perfectly in order and there is no merit in both the writ petitions.