Allahabad High Court
New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Thru ... vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31098 of 2021
Petitioner :- New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Thru Admin. Officer
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Labour Lko And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Prakash Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 02/3.08.2021 passed by opposite party no. 2 i.e., Workman Compensation Commissioner & Add. Labour Commissioner, 23 A.P. Sen Road, Lucknow Region, Lucknow in execution Case No. 37/2015 (Smt. Nazma & Another vs. Shri Anjum Khan and another) and the petitioner has directed to make the payment of the interest @ 12% p.a. from one month after the accident i.e., 30.05.2015.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that infact the aforesaid order was passed on 02/3.08.2021. The owner of the vehicle appeared and filed a review application by mentioning the fact that the order dated 08.04.2019 is an exparte order and without giving an opportunity of hearing before court concerned and as such the learned Commissioner without considering the aforesaid fact has passed the order that interest shall also be paid by the petitioner's company.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that infact the Commissioner had no right to review its own order as is barred under Rule 32 of the Workmen's Compensation Rule 1924 which is extracted as under:-
"The Commissioner, in passing orders, shall record concisely a judgment, his finding on each of the issues framed and his reasons for such finding.
The Commissioner, at the time of signing and dating his judgment, shall pronounce, his decision, and thereafter, no addition or alteration shall be made to the judgment order than the correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgement dated 19.09.2017 passed in Writ C No. 1554 of 2003 Smt. Karuna Bala Varshney & Another vs. Shyam Sunder which is extracted as follows:-
17. It is an equally well settled principle of law that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The Supreme Court in Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another (1996) 5 SCC 728 in paragraph 4 has held:
"4. It is well settled legal position that an executing Court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 21, CPC. In view of the fact that it is a money claim, what was to be computed is the arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of his promotional benefits in accordance with the service law. That having been done and the court having decided the entitlement of the decree-holder in a sum of Rs.1,97,000/- and odd, the question that arises is whether the executing Court could step out and grant a decree for interest which was not part of the decree for execution on the ground of delay in payment or for unreasonable stand taken in execution ? In our view, the executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and the order is one without jurisdiction and is thereby a void order. It true that the High Court normally exercises its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC but once it is held that the executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, it is but the duty of the High Court to correct the same. Therefore, we do not find any illegally in the order passed by the High Court in interfering with and setting aside the order directing payment of interest."
He further added that infact no court can proceed for execution of decree existing in his jurisdiction as the Workman Commissioner has wrongly passed the order dated 02/3.08.2021 and that too against the mandate of the provisions of Section 32 of Workmen's Compensation Rule 1924. He further added that infact the present petitioner has complied with the order dated 08.04.2019 by way of paying of the amount i.e., including the amount of the interest vide cheque dated 10.05.2019 and that too was recorded in the order dated 02/3.08.2021. He submits that in such premises the order passed by the Workman Commissioner is unlawful and assails with perversity.
Countering the aforesaid learned Standing Counsel very vehemently opposes the aforesaid facts and submits that infact since the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent no. 5 was not afforded opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner and as such Workman Commissioner has rightly given an opportunity after the judgement dated 08.04.2019 and as such there is no illegality or perversity in the order aforesaid.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the order dated 02.08.2021 assails illegality and infirmity as this is inviolation of provisions of Rule 32 of Workmen's Compensation Rule, 1924 and Workman Commissioner, after passing final order no additional adulteration could have been done to the judgement other than the correction, clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission. Further he could not have proceeded with any execution proceeding on the basis of judgment and decree which was passed in illegally and unlawful.
In the light of discussion aforesaid the order dated 02/03.08.2021, passed by opposite party no. 2 i.e., Workman Compensation Commissioner & Add. Labour Commissioner, 23 A.P. Sen Road, Lucknow Region, Lucknow in execution Case No. 37/2015 (Smt. Nazma & Another vs. Shri Anjum Khan and another) is here by set aside. The consequence shall be followed.
With aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed off finally.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022
Ujjawal
