Yashwinder Khurana vs Deputy Commissioner & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1682 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                        Date of Reserve: February 03, 2010
                                                            Date of Order: March 25, 2010
+ CM(M) 106/2009
%                                                                              25.03.2010
     Yashwinder Khurana                                                 ...Petitioner
     Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate

        Versus

        Deputy Commissioner & Ors.                      ...Respondents
        Through: Mr. M.N. Singh, Advocate for R-2/workman.


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


        JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed that the

proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 Deputy Commissioner under

Workmen Compensation Act on an application moved by respondent no.2

(workman) dated 25th may, 2008 be quashed and the Deputy Commissioner

under Workmen Compensation Act be directed to initiate action of perjury

and fraud against respondent no.2 (workman).

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the

respondent no.2 herein was working with the petitioner's factory where some

mishap took place on 22nd January 2008 and respondent no.2 lost two fingers

of one of his hands. He (workman) lodged a compensation claim with the

office of Commissioner on 11th March, 2008 under Section 10 of the Workmen

Compensation Act and the same was registered there. However, the workman

CM(M) 106/2009 Yashwinder Khurana v. Deputy Commissioner & ors. Page 1 Of 3 on 9th April, 2008 is stated to have entered into a settlement with the

petitioner for compensation in respect of injuries and received Rs.70,000/- in

presence of Investigating Officer of Police Station Sarai Rohilla and in

presence of his own sister in law and another friend Shri Chander Bhan. After

receiving this compensation, the workman wrote to General Secretary of

Majdoor Vikas Samiti Shri Vinod Kumar and to Shri S.K. Shukla of Majdoor

Vikas Samiti not to proceed with his compensation case. On 30 th April, 2008,

the compensation case was taken up by the Commissioner where the parties

appeared and before the Commissioner and it was stated by the workman

that he had already taken Rs.70,000/- from the management for injuries

sustained by him in the course of employment and after this settlement he

would have no right under Workmen Compensation Act to receive

compensation for injuries. He had settled his case willingly and the

compensation case be closed. After recording this case was closed. However,

later on the workman made an application for revival of his case, copy of

which was sent to the petitioner. In the application, the allegations of fraud

were made by the workman against the petitioner herein. The Commissioner

under Workmen Compensation Act issued notice of the application to the

petitioner and the petitioner filed reply to the application and also made an

application under Section 340 Cr.P.C read with Section 195 Cr.P.C and Section

23 of Workmen Compensation Act. The petitioner also requested that the

Commissioner should ensure personal appearance of respondent no.2 before

him. It is stated that the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act

however proceeded further on the application made by the workman and has

not considered the application made by the petitioner under Section 340

Cr.P.C and hence the present petition.

CM(M) 106/2009 Yashwinder Khurana v. Deputy Commissioner & ors. Page 2 Of 3

3. The notice of the petition was served upon the respondents. The

respondent No.2 (workman) admitted receiving of Rs.70,000/- from the

management under the compromise. The management also offered that the

respondent may continue with the compensation claim and return the

amount received from the management. However, the workman was not

prepared to return the amount already received on the ground that he did not

have the amount now with him as he has already spent the same.

4. I consider that the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely.

This Court cannot compel the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation

Act to decide the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C first and then to decide

the application made by the workman for revival of the proceedings. Since

the petitioner has already placed facts before the Commissioner under

Workmen Compensation Act, the petitioner ought to have wait for the order

of the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act and if the petitioner

felt aggrieved from the order of Commissioner under Workmen Compensation

Act, then only the petitioner had a right to approach the appropriate forum

available to him. This Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction over

subordinate courts or tribunals cannot give directions as to whether the

tribunal should decide X application or Y application first. These are the

matters within the competence of the Tribunal/Commissioner and the

Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the applications in accordance with law.

5. The petition stands disposed of with above order.

March 25, 2010                                                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd


CM(M) 106/2009   Yashwinder Khurana v. Deputy Commissioner & ors.      Page 3 Of 3