PREET COMFORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Order of the 1st respondent passed in W.C.No.52/99 dated 30-1-2003 and aiso the Order dated 13-12-2004 in Review Petition No.WC.MP.7/ 2003, WC.MP.8/2003, WC.MP.9/2003 and WC.MP. 10/2003 as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) It appears, petitioners are the Management of Preeti Comforts and Preeti Engineers. Respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased- Tanuku Vijaya Durga Santa Vara Prasad, who was an employee of the petitioners. While he was travelling during the course of employment in a train, died due to train accident. It appears, parents of the deceased Vara Prasad filed a claim petition in O.A.A.No.104 of 1999 before Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad against the 2nd respondent. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after full trial passed an Award dated 11-6-1999 directing the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each to respondents 3 and 4. Thereafter, respondents 3 and 4 have also filed W.C.No.52 of 1999 on the file of the 1st respondent claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs before the 1st respondent. According to the petitioners, respondents 3 and A suppressed the factum of Award made by the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A.A.No.104 of 1999 and filed W.C.No.52 of 1999 and the same was ordered directing them to deposit Rs.2,18,270/- towards compensation payable to respondents 3 and 4 by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said Order. Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition in WC.MP. No.7/2003 to review the Order dated 30-1-2003, WC.MP.No.8/2003 to send Exs.A-9, A-15 and signatures on Vakalatnama, counter affidavit, deposition and fresh signatures for reference to handwriting expert for verification, WC.MP.No.9/2003 to mark Exs.R-1 to R-18 i.e. attendance register for the period from April, 1998 to December, 1998 and wage register for the period from April, 1998 to December,1998 and WC.MP.No.10/2003 to stay the Proceedings including depositing of the amount of Rs.2,18,470/- pending disposal of the review petition. Ail the petitions were dismissed on 13-12-2004 on the ground that the Judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable and further under Section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Authority is not vested with the power to review its own order. Challenging the said Order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that firstly the very petition in W.C.No.52 of 199 is not maintainable in view of Section 128 of the Railways Act, 1989. Secondly, assuming that such a petition is maintainable, in view of the fact that respondents 3 and 4 have already availed remedy under the Railways Act and claimed compensation before the Tribunal, they are not entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which amounts to claiming compensation more than once, in respect of the same accident. In a case of this nature, even the review petition is maintainable; therefore, dismissal of review petition is arbitrary and illegal, in this regard, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment reported in Smt. Zaibunnisa v. Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway and submitted that two claims are not maintainable in respect of the same accident.