Delhi High Court
Gobind Gupta vs Commissioner Under Workman ... on 4 May, 2011
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP (C) No.1290/2011
Date of Decision: May 04, 2011
GOBIND GUPTA ..... Petitioner
through Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER UNDER WORKMAN COMPENSATION ACT &
ORS ..... Respondents
through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The challenge in this writ-petition is to an order of the
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, passed about
14 years ago on April 23, 1997 awarding compensation of ` 89,600/-
to respondent No.2 and ` 44,800/- by way of penalty. The challenge
has also been raised to a further order of the Commissioner dated
March 30, 1998, directing the concerned SDM to effect recovery of
the compensation amount from M/s Bharat Agro Plastic Factory and
from the petitioner in his personal capacity. The petitioner has
prayed for quashing of both the aforementioned orders.
WP (C) No.1290/2011 Page 1
It is contended that the deceased husband of respondent
No.2, namely, Shri Krishan Kumar on account of whose death she
has been awarded compensation, was employed with M/s Bharat
Agro Plastic Factory with which the petitioner had no concern and as
such, he could not be fastened with the liability to pay the
compensation or the penalty amount. As per the petitioner, he is
one of the Directors in a company, named, Bharat Polychem Ltd.
which has no connection with M/s Bharat Agro Plastic Factory. It is
also contended that late Shri Krishan Kumar was insured under the
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and that in view of Section 53
of the said Act which provides that an insured person or his
dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from
the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any
compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923, the impugned orders passed under the Workmen's
Compensation Act were a nullity.
One fact which needs to be highlighted is that the
aforementioned orders of April 23, 1997 and March 30, 1998 which
are the subject matter of challenge in this writ-petition, were also
challenged by the petitioner in the year 2001 by way of writ-petition
No.2551/2001. In that writ-petition, it was held that an appeal and
not a writ lay against the order in question. Nonetheless, instead of
dismissing the writ-petition, it was treated as an appeal (FAO) which
was taken up for hearing on May 03, 2006. None, however,
WP (C) No.1290/2011 Page 2
appeared before the Court on that date and consequently, the FAO
was dismissed in default. The petitioner filed an application for
restoration of the FAO along with an application for condonation of
delay but by order dated February 18, 2008, both the applications
were dismissed. Against the order so passed, he filed an LPA, but
on October 28, 2010, he withdrew the same with liberty to seek an
appropriate remedy as permissible in law. It is in this background
that the present writ-petition has been filed.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that the
present writ-petition is a total abuse of the process of law. The
reliefs prayed for in the writ-petition are the same as were sought in
writ-petition No.2551/2001. I fail to understand, how the present
petition is maintainable when against the same impugned orders,
WP(C) No.2551/2001 was filed and it was held to be not
maintainable.
In so far as the appeal against the impugned orders is
concerned, as noticed above, it was dismissed in default. The
application for restoration was also dismissed. Hence, the orders
attained finality.
For the fore-going reasons, I hold that the writ-petition is
wholly misconceived and is dismissed as such.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
MAY 04, 2011
ka
WP (C) No.1290/2011 Page 3
