Allahabad High Court
Ram Sidharey Chauhan vs Workman Compensation Ayukt Evam ... on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1003880 of 2012
Petitioner :- Ram Sidharey Chauhan
Respondent :- Workman Compensation Ayukt Evam Up Shramayukt Faizabad Divis
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Tripathi,Arvind Kumar Pathak,Krishna Kumar Seth,Rajesh Kumar,Ratnesh Tripathi,Shitla Prasad Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ankit Srivastava,Mayank Pandey,Suresh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
(Order on C.M. Application No.100809 of 2021-Delay)
(Order on C.M. Application No.100814 of 2021-Recall)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These two applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the recall application as well as for recall of the order dated 26.2.2020.
Reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the applications are sufficient.
Applications are allowed and the delay in filing the recall application is condoned. Consequently, the order dated 26.2.2020 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.
(Order on C.M. Application No.100816 of 2021-Delay)
(Order on C.M. Application No.100821 of 2021-Substitution)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Reasons and facts stated in the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay are sufficient. Application is allowed and the delay in filing the substitution application is condoned.
The substitution application has been moved for substituting the legal heirs of the sole petitioner.
The application is allowed.
Let the heirs of the sole petitioner be substituted in the array of parties during course of the day.
(Order on Writ Petition)
The petitioner-employer has approached this Court against the order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner-respondent no.1. By the said order, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has accepted the review application for hearing on merits again by reviewing his order dated 22.1.2011, whereby application of Late Ram Jagat Chauhan under the Workmen Compensation Act was decided. The order of review is passed on the ground that the certificate of disability was on record, but the same could not be considered as it was not very clear. The disability certificate was the most important piece of evidence and the same ought to have been taken into consideration, therefore, the order requires review.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no power of review with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner as the Act does not provide any such power to him.
Learned counsel for the respondents Sri Ankit Srivastava submits that in the case of Grindlays Bank Limited vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, 1980 (Supp.) SCC 420, the Supreme Court has examined the procedural review and held:
"13. .................The expression 'review' is used in two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the Court in Narshi Thakershi's case held that no review lies on merits unless a status specifically provides for it. Obviously when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal."
Sri Ankit Srivastava submits that the present case is covered by the said judgment.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
The most relevant piece of evidence was the certificate of disability on the basis of which, claim of Late Ram Jagat Chauhan could be decided. The same was on record, but the same was not taken into consideration, therefore, this is a case of procedural review. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 31.5.2012.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
Order Date :- 11.4.2022
Sachin
