RAMAN AGNIHOTRI Vs. ARUN KUMAR TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant coupled with an application for condonation of delay of 336 days. Parties have exchanged affidavits in the application for condonation of delay. The ground taken by the appellant is that award was made on 6th December, 2007. A review application was made before the Court of workmen's compensation, which was rejected on 31st March, 2008. Again a review application was made which was also rejected on 12th November, 2008, therefore, there is no remedy for the appellant excepting filing of the appeal. There is no deliberate cause of delay in filing the appeal. When we have called upon learned counsel appearing for the appellant to give reply whether application for review is available for the court of workmen's compensation or not, he answered that as per Rule 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 (for short 'the Rules') he is entitled to make application for review. Although, the learned counsel has not referred Section 6 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), but the same also makes provision for review. Both the provisions are quoted hereunder :

(2.) UPON going through the provisions as made in the Act and the Rules, we find that the provision for review is made for specific purpose. When we asked the question as to why the review applications were made, it has been categorically answered that the review applications were made since the award has been passed ex parte, but from record we find that the ex parte order, which was passed earlier, has been recalled on payment of cost and thereafter the proceeding was contested. The appellant has already filed affidavit contradicting the stand of the opposite party/parties. Even he has cross-examined the witnesses. When we asked the question that if the order is passed ex parte, why recalling application has not been made, no fruitful answer has been given by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that a writ petition was also filed challenging such order, when the Court cautioned him from taking such type of stand. Therefore, it appears to us that the intention of the appellant is not fair but deliberate to delay the payment of claim amount to the claimant, who are ultimate beneficiaries under the Statute, a beneficial piece of legislation.