RAM DEVI Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Devi petitioner filed application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (in short, the Act) before Commissioner under the Act, claiming compensation for the death of her son. The petitioner herself is widow. The said claim petition was dismissed in default on 24.4.2008 by the Commissioner vide order Annexure P/1 when none appeared for both the parties. Petitioner moved application for restoration of the claim application. The said restoration application was also dismissed in default by the Commissioner vide order dated 14.5.2009, Annexure P/2. Petitioner then moved restoration application Annexure P/3 which has been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 18.3.2010, Annexure P/4. All the aforesaid three orders Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/4 are under challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondent no. 2 on the other hand pointed out that not only the claim application was dismissed in default but also first restoration application was dismissed in default and there is no ground for restoring the claim application. It was also submitted that if the claim application is restored, respondents would be unnecessarily burdened with burden of interest for the intervening period without any fault on their part.