Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Shree Balaji Enterprises ... vs M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 25 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 5791 of 2023
M/s. Shree Balaji Enterprises Represented by its managing partner
Sanjay Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Resp. no. 1 : Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
---
07/25.10.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although
in the writ petition the petitioner has raised the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice as well as the point that the entire
proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction in as much as no cause of
action has arisen before this Court. The learned counsel has
additionally submitted that the payment was made to the claimants
when the accident had taken place at Bengaluru and therefore there
was no surviving grievance so far as the payment is concerned.
3. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the
respondent-insurance company has referred to the provisions of
Section 21(b) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and has
submitted that under the provisions of the said Act, the case for
claiming compensation can be filed in case of death of the employee
by the dependent claiming compensation where they ordinarily reside.
He submits that the applicants were the permanent residents of the
District of Bokaro within the State of Jharkhand and the case was filed
within the district of Bokaro.
4. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Morgina Begum versus Managing
Director, Hanuman Plantation Ltd. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 616.
5. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
even if the jurisdiction point does not survive, but the fact remains that
the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of
natural justice and the petitioner has taken a specific plea at paragraph
no. 18 of the writ application that the notice was never served upon
the petitioner.
6. It is made clear that only point which survives for consideration
is as to whether the petitioner was served with the notice by the
learned court and this court would examine this aspect of the matter
only prima facie as the respondent insurance company has raised the
point of availability of alternative remedy.
7. Accordingly, let the records of case being E.C. Case No. 1 of
2020 decided on 25.01.2023 be called for from the court of learned
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro. The records of the case be
accompanied with a report of the concerned court with regard to mode
and manner of dispatch of notice and the service report, if any.
8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through
FAX/e-mail for compliance .
9. Post this case on 27.11.2024 in the supplementary cause list.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
