KALYAN SINGH Vs. DHANNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by one Kalyan Singh wherein he has prayed for quashing the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner Jodhpur, the non-petitioner No. 2, dated 30th of April, 1973, and his award dated 30th of November, 1973, under Workmen's Compensation Act and further prayed to send the case back to the non petitioner No. 2 to decide it after giving an applicant opportunity of being heard.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant and are material for the disposal of this petition are as follows :

(3.) EVEN otherwise the impugned order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner cannot be taken to be beyond the bounds of his authority on the ground that requirements of O. 5, r. 20 C. P. C. for the substituted service were not complied with. It has been submitted that neither an application was made nor affidavit filed that the petitioner had been evading the service. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had dealt this point elaborately. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has observed that the summons of the petition containing the claim were sent twice to the petitioner at his residence but the same could not be served personally as no body in the house accepted the summons. The summons were then sent by registered post which were returned unserved with the remark that the petitoner hid left the place without leaving any address. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on these facts and circumstances was satisfied that the petitioner was evading the service. It is true that no application was made by Dhannaram that the peationer was evading the service but the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was satisfied on the materials on record although strict requirement of O. 5 r. 20 C. P. C. were not satisfied but at the same time it was for the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to be satisfied. He had jurisdiction to order the substituted service As the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had jurisdiction to order the substituted service and the sufficiency of circumstances with which he was satisfied for ordering substituted service cannot be said to be without any basis, the order of substituted service cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary or capricious so as to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 to interfere with the same. There were circumstances and facts before him on which he was satisfied to order the substituted service and insufficiency of such circumstances cannot be canvassed to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction on the ground that he had travelled beyond his bounds. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has dealt with this aspect elaborately while rejecting the application under O. 9 r. 13 C. P. C. and I am not inclined to hold that there is any jurisdictional error or any such error which would call for invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction