Allahabad High Court
Vijay Shankar Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 April, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2463 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vijay Shankar Dubey
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Prakash Deo Pandey,Ashok Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Udai Prakash Deo Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following relief :-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2, Commissioner, Workmen Compensation and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Region, Pipri, Sonbhadra to get the executionn of the award dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Labour commissioner, Mirzapur Region Pipari, Sonbhadra in Case No. W.C. 44/2005 (Shri Vijay Shankar dubey vs. Director Marketing M/s. Time Tech Formulation Limited) pursuant to the execution application dated 04.09.2008 filed by the petitioner.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2, Commissioner, Workmen Compensation and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirapur Region, Pipari, Sonbhadra to ensure the payment of the awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.4,72,320/- along with the interest at 12% per annum and the other statutory benefits as provided under the Employees Compensation Act."
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has informed this Court that petitioner on previous occasions also approached this Court by filing Writ - C No. 17048 of 2016, seeking implementation of award dated 31.03.2008, passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Region, Pipari, Sonbhadra, was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 25.04.2016 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The relevant portion of order dated 25.04.2016, is quoted herein below :-
"In view of the above and in light of the provisions of Article 226(2), it is apparent that no part of the cause-of-action now remains for the consideration of this Court inasmuch as the appropriate authority has already allowed the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act and has also forwarded a recovery citation for being executed against the second respondent which is also a company situate and incorporated in the state of Andhra Pradesh.
This Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to consider the claim as set forth in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. This Court, however, grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the first respondent who may take such appropriate steps as may be available in law to ensure that the claimed amount is recovered expeditiously."
4. The petitioner again approached this Court on second occasion by filing Writ - C No. 33279 of 2018, seeking direction to the respondents to provide the petitioner with the compensation amount alonwith interest in compliance of judgment and award dated 31.03.2008. The said writ petition was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 03.10.2018, after taking note of the order passed by this Court in Writ - C No. 17048 of 2016, which was dismissed by order dated 25.04.2016, and again the second writ petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
5. Despite aforesaid orders being passed, the petitioner has approached this Court yet again by means of present writ petition seeing prayer for direction to the respondents to execute the award dated 31.03.2008. Present writ petition is clearly abuse of process of law specifically in the light of the fact that on previous two occasions this Court by means of orders dated 25.04.2016 and 03.10.2018 dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the petitioner on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
6. For the third time the petitioner has approached this Court seeking same relief. It is not understood as to how prayer sought by the petitioner can be granted when on two separate occasions the writ petitions have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. We would have imposed heavy cost on the petitioner, but were persuaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on assurance that no further writ petition in this regard would be filed by the petitioner in future.
7. In the light of above writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2023/A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
