PREETI LAL Vs. THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and has been directed against the order dated 11.10.1999 passed by Shri K.S. Bedi, HLS, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, who allowed the application of the workman and restored the proceedings.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that earlier the workman filed a claim application before the learned Commissioner against Preeti Lal, the present petitioner. During the pendency of that petition Roshan Deen respondent filed a compromise letter stating that since the parties have entered into an agreement, therefore, he does not want to prosecute his claim petition and wants to withdraw the same. This application was moved by Roshan Deen on 12.3.1999. The Court was on leave on that day and the case was adjourned to 16.3.1999. Then the case was adjourned to 19.3.1999. Even on that day Roshan Deen did not appear. On the contrary, the learned counsel for Preeti Lal appeared and he stated before the Court that in view of the compromise effected between the parties Roshan Deen would not appear. In this view of the matter, the main petition, which was filed by Roshan Deep, was dismissed as settled/withdrawn on 19.3.1999. Subsequently, Roshan Deen filed an application stating that his counsel Rajpal Pawar obtained his thumb impression on certain documents and filed the same before the Court and the contents of the documents were not read over and explained to him. After attending the Court he was given a sum of Rs. 9,500/ - by his counsel and told that the case has been decided by the Court. According to the averments of Roshan Deen, he never instructed his counsel to enter into any compromise on his behalf. He further alleged that the petitioner has played a fraud upon him in collusion with his counsel and obtained his thumb impression saying that the thumb impression is for his presence in the Court, date of his case, the court told him that his case has been finally decided notice of the application for recalling of the order dated 19.3.1999 was given to the opposite party who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the Preeti Lal, a compromise has been effected between the parties and no fraud has been played and the main petition has been rightly dismissed on 19,3.1999.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.