M/S.ENGINEERING AND ALLIED SERVICES (P) LIMITED Vs. JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER-CUM-COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPEN¬SATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 14.1.2003 passed by the Commissioner -cum -Workmens Compensation, Bhubaneswar in W.C. Case No.159 of 2000 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 17.1.2000.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that opposite party No.2 had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.2.24 lakhs on account of death of her son, who was electrocuted in course of his employment on 14.3.2000 at about 12.00 noon. After receipt of notice, the petitioner submitted the information in Form -II on 26.9.2000. It was intimated in the said Form that the deceased was insured under M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited under Janata Personal Accident Policy bearing Policy No.4755010501915. The grievance of the petitioner is that though this fact was intimated to the Commissioner, Insurance Company was not made a party to indemnify the compensation and fixed the liability on the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that no point of time, opportunity was given to it for filing a written statement or participating in the proceeding.

(3.) FROM the certificate copy of the order sheet, Annexure -2, it appears that there is no dispute that the petitioner appeared before the Commissioner pursuant to notice in the said case and submitted that the workman had been insured under New India Assurance Company Limited under Janata Personal Accident Policy and, therefore, it has no liability for compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner neither filed any written statement nor contested the proceeding. No objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner to implead the Insurance Company as a party to the proceeding. From the order sheet, it appears that the petitioner not only admitted employment but also admitted accident and it is also stated that the accident took place in course of employment. Since the petitioner did not contest any further after filing of Form -II, the Tribunal heard the matter on 8.11.2000 and disposed of the same on 17.11.2000. In view of the above, the award passed by the Commissioner cannot be said to be an ex parte award so far as the petitioner is concerned. Since it is not an ex parte award, the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2000 on the ground that it was an ex parte award, in my view, was a misconceived the petition. The learned Commissioner was, therefore, right in rejecting the petition.