BASHIR KHAN Vs. RANGER SOCIAL VANIKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference to a larger Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court arises in the following way. Petitioner Bashir Khan was employed under respondents No. 1 and 2 as a workman at the relevant period on daily wage basis. While he was discharging his duties as a workman under the respondents a water tank at Forest Nursery, Gudhachandraji, belonging to the State got burst and the debris fell over his legs resulting in fractures of both the legs. Petitioner Bashir Khan submitted a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sawai Madhopur and claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,000/ -. Notices of this claim petition were sent to respondents No. 1 and 2 but they did not care to put in appearance with the result that ex parte proceedings were taken and the evidence of the petitioner was recorded and by order dated September 28, 1987 the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded asum of Rs. 66081. 60p. against the aforesaid respondents. A penalty in a sum of Rs. 33008. 50p. was also imposed upon the respondents. The respondents were directed to make payment with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(2.) IT appears that on December 5, 1987 respondent No. 2 submitted an application before the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for setting aside the award dated September 28, 1987 on the ground that notices of the claim were, never served on this respondent. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner accepted the aforesaid application of respondent No. 2 in spite of objection taken on behalf of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the application for setting aside, the ex parte award and permitted respondents to oppose the claim after setting aside the ex parte award.

(3.) IT appears that the claim of the petitioner was taken up for hearing and respondent No. 2 filed a reply to the claim petition of the petitioner wherein averments made in the claim petition were denied. The grievance of the petitioner is that the case was fixed up for evidence of the petitioner at camp' Gangapur city without informing him of the venue and the claim petition was dismissed on the ground of absence of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he submitted an application before the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on November 28, 1988 for restoration of his claim petition, This application itself was dismissed on June 9, 1989 on the ground of absence of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that notices of the date of hearing were never served on him and it was on August 14, 1989 that the petitioner came to know that his Application for restoration had been dismissed in default on June 9, 1989. Having been aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for restoration and dismissal of his claim petition, the petitioner filed S. B. Civil Revision No. 949/1989 before this Court.