KUSUM GUPTA Vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 14.12.1996, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Labour Court (henceforth the Commissioner'), Ambikapur. It appears that an application under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (henceforth 'the Act') was filed on 26.4.95. Therefore, on 26.4.1995 and 10.7.1995, the case was adjourned on the ground that the Commissioner was at his headquarters at Bilaspur. Thereafter, no order-sheet has been recorded for the next date of 23.8.95. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application for restarting the proceedings. The case was fixed on 14.12.1996. The learned Commissioner has held that he was present at Ambikapur from 11.8.1995 onwards but, since the appellant did not take any step to get the case fixed, he dismissed the claim of the appellant.

(2.) In the opinion of this court, the order dated 14.12.1996, passed by the then Commissioner, who was presiding over the court on 14.12.96, is totally arbitrary and highly alarming. The appellant was not at fault. The case was not heard on 23.8.1995 and for this reason, the appellant could not be blamed. Since the case was pending, there was no occasion for the Commissioner to dismiss the case, when the appellant applied for fixing the case for hearing. The fault lay with the Commissioner and not with the appellant, when the case was not heard on 23.8.1995. It appears that the learned Commissioner does not know principles of law. It is well established that act of a court cannot prejudice a party. It was the act of the court when the learned Commissioner did not write the order- sheet after 23.8,1995. It is the mistake of the Commissioner when he did not call the case on 23.8.1995. It is strange that the learned Commissioner took umbrage when the appellant applied for a hearing. The learned Commissioner has blamed the appellant because the case was not fixed after 23.8.1995 and has stated that he was working in the court since 11.8.1995. Why did he not take the case himself after 11.8.1995? He could have decided the case early. He cannot blame the appellant. It is well established that procedure is not for giving punishment to a party. This is what the Commissioner has done.

(3.) The result is that this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the court on 29.4.1999 for taking a date. The impugned order dated 14.12.1996 is hereby set aside. The respondent shall pay cost of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred), if certified.Appeal allowed.