BHARAT SINGH THAKUR Vs. AMARTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the case at hand, this Court sees no need to issue notice to the respondents and as such the same is dispensed with .

(2.) Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lays challenge to orders dated 29.11.2016 and 25.8.2017, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division No.1), Rohru in CMP No. 363/6 of 2016 and CMP No. 148/6 of 2016, whereby applications having been filed by petitioner-claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') under Section 151 CPC as well as under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC, praying therein for revival of claim petition filed under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act and for setting aside ex parte order dated 29.11.2016 came be dismissed.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned orders, this Court finds that in the year 2008 petitioner filed claim petition (Annexure P-1) under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act on account of injury sustained by him, during his employment with respondent-Company. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No.1) exercising the powers of Employees Compensation Commissioner after having perused the record arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident which took place at Faridabad (Haryana) and as such in view of mandate of Proviso to Section 21(1), it is necessary to call for response/no objection from the concerned Employment Commissioner and accordingly vide order dated 31.3.2014, Annexure P-1 (Page 91 of the paper book) directed the Civil Alhmad to send correspondence to learned Employees Compensation Officer, Faridabad (Haryana) to seek his response. While passing aforesaid direction, Court specifically directed Civil Ahlmad to place the petition either before him or Presiding Officer as and when the correspondence is received. Besides above, Court also reserved liberty to the petitioner to proceed further, if concerned Employees Compensation Officer states its no objection in reference to above correspondence sent in terms of order dated 31.3.2014. However, it appears that till 2014 either no response, if any, from Employment Commissioner, Faridahad (Haryana) was received or Civil Alhmad of the Court concerned failed to place the matter before Court concerned and as such petitioner by way of application under Section 151 of CPC (available at paper book No.31) sought direction to Civil Alhmad to place the case before Court so that further proceedings are initiated. Zimni orders placed on record reveal that such application remained pending adjudication for more than one year and on 29.11.2016 (Annexure P-4), the same came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on account of absence of claimant or his counsel. After passing of aforesaid order, claimant again filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC, praying therein for restoration of aforesaid application filed by him for revival of the claim petition but the same was also dismissed on 25.8.2017, Annexure P-6. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for quashment of aforesaid impugned orders and direction to the Court below to proceed with the claim petition which is pending adjudication since the year 2008.