KHURANA METALS Vs. JAGDISH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 20.6.1994 and 31.7.1994, passed by the respondent No. 2 in case No. WCNF 10/93.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is stated to be a registered partnership firm whose partners are Shri Kishore Khurana and Shri Mahesh Khurana and the registration number of the partnership firm is 2/69/91. The petitioner submitted the Registration Certificate of the firm issued by the Registrar of Firms and the deed of the Partnership. The petitioner submitted in para No. 2 of the petition that the respondent No. 2 is (sic. is not) the workman with the petitioner firm and was never employed in the petitioner firm. The respondent No. 1 has filed a claim petition before the respondent No. 2 and it is submitted thereunder that he was engaged as Foreman with the petitioner firm. It is stated that on 5.12.1992, during the course of employment an accident took place in which he sustained injuries in his right hand. Due to the injuries, his right hand has been permanently disabled. He claimed Rs. 35,000.00 as compensation and medical expenses in the tune of Rs. 10,000.00. He also prayed for the interest @ 12% from the date of his accident. The respondent No. I has also prayed for award of Rs. 3,50,000.00 as damages. The petitioner has come up with the case that notice of this claim petition was not served upon the petitioner and ex parte order has been made on 31.7.1993 by the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner firm was directed to pay Rs. 40,938.00 to this workman. The petitioner has not challenged this alleged ex parte order of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 2 for setting aside of this ex parse order which was came to be rejected under order impugned. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice of the claim application was not served on the firm and this ex parte order passed deserved to be recalled and set aside.