Kerala High Court
K.R.Jayavardhanan vs P.K.Pushpakaran on 21 January, 2025
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
O.P.(C) No.318 of 2012
--1-
2025:KER:5082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 1ST MAGHA, 1946
OP(C) NO. 318 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2011 IN WCC
NO.303 OF 1999 OF W.C.C.,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:
K.R.JAYAVARDHANAN
S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, KALLAYIL HOUSE,
P.O.MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 P.K.PUSHPAKARAN
S/O. KUNJAPPU, PANTHAYIL VATTAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
PANNISSERY, P.O.KOONAMMOOCHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-
680504. [DIED-LRS IMPLEADED]
2 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, KUNNAMKULAM-680503.
3 CHANDRIKA,
AGED 60 YEARS
O.P.(C) No.318 of 2012
--2-
2025:KER:5082
W/O. LATE PUSHPAKARAN,PANTHAYIL VATTAVALAPPIL
HOUSE, PANISSERY, P.O KOONAMMOCHI, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, NOW AT C/O. SHIJOY, PAMPUNGAL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKEMURI, P.O PARAPPUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
[DIED]
4 SHEEJAN,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. LATE P.K PUSHPAKARAN, PANTHAYIL
VATTAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PANNISSERY, P.O
KOONAMMOOCHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. *
( ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED FIRST
RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 15.02.2024 IN IA
1/2018 IN OP(C) 318/2012)
( ADDITIONAL FOURTH RESPONDENT IS RECORDED AS
THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ADDITIONAL THIRD
RESPONDENT AS PER MEMO DATED 05/02/2024 AS PER
ORDER DATED 15/02/2024.)*
BY ADVS.
T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
SMT.S.JAYASREE
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C) No.318 of 2012
--3-
2025:KER:5082
K.BABU, J
-------------------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No.318 of 2012
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this Original Petition is to Ext.P4
order passed by the Court of the Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Thrissur.
2. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of
respondent No.1 (the employer) in WCC No. 303 of 1999.
Respondent No.1 was the applicant in the proceedings.
He died during the proceedings in this matter. His legal
representatives were impleaded as additional respondent
Nos.3 and 4. Respondent No.2 is the United India
Insurance Company Ltd. The applicant in the WCC, a
toddy tapper, filed a petition under Section 22 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, alleging that he
sustained injuries during the course of his employment.
--4-
2025:KER:5082
He claimed a sum of Rs.1,83,708/- as compensation from
the employer and the Insurance Company.
3. The employer died during the proceedings
before the Court below. The legal heirs of the employer
were impleaded. The Court below issued notice to them,
but they did not appear. They were set ex parte. The
Court proceeded to hear the second opposite party, the
Insurance Company and passed Ext.P1 Award. The
petitioner filed Ext.P2 application under Rule 41 of the
Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924, seeking to set
aside the order dated 05.03.2007 passed in WCC No.303
of 1999 by the Court below. The commissioner rejected
the application seeking to set aside the ex parte Award.
The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner/respondent No.4
--5-
2025:KER:5082
had not received notice in the proceedings. The learned
counsel for additional respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Lrs of the
applicant in WCC) submits that in the proceedings during
the trial, notice was served on the petitioner and the
other legal representatives of the employer. In the
execution proceedings also, they were served with notice.
6. I have gone through the impugned order which
makes it clear that notice was served to the legal
representatives of the employer including the petitioner.
It is further evident from the impugned order that notices
were served on the petitioner and the other legal
representatives of the employer in the execution
proceedings also.
7. The incident happened on 11.05.1999. After
prolonged proceedings, on 05.03.2007, the Court below
passed Ext.P1 Award. Thereafter, the applicant in the
WCC filed a petition to execute the order. It was on
03.12.2009, the petitioner herein filed the application to
--6-
2025:KER:5082
set aside the ex parte order. There was no satisfactory
explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the
application. The petitioner has not established 'sufficient
cause' for setting aside the ex parte order.
8. There are three differing reasons supporting
the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that
long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in
them, (2) the opposite party might have lost the evidence
to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good
causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable
diligence.
9. An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of
insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation
prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have
been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or
what may have been lost by a party's own inaction,
negligence or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v.
SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510], Rajender Singh v.
--7-
2025:KER:5082
Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 705] : AIR 1973 SC 2537] and
Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17
SCC 448 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 907]). (Vide: Basawaraj
and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officcer
[(2013) 14 SCC 81]).
10. The expression "sufficient cause" should be
given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial
justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or
lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party
concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been
furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case
and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide: Madanlal v.
Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100], Ram
Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002
SC 1201]) and Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land
Acquisition Officcer [(2013) 14 SCC 81]).
11. In Basawaraj (supra), the Supreme Court held
that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not
--8-
2025:KER:5082
have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of
bona fide on its part in view of the facts and
circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the
party has not acted diligently or remained inactive. The
Supreme Court further held that the applicant must
satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient
cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a
satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not
allow the application in his favour. The Court has to
examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a
device to cover an ulterior purpose, the Supreme Court
added.
12. In the present case, the materials revealed that
the petitioner has acted in a negligent manner and there
was lack of bonafides on his part. He failed to satisfy the
Court that he was prevented by any 'sufficient cause'
from filing the application to set aside the ex parte order
in time.
--9-
2025:KER:5082
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner and the applicant had no
employer-employee relationship. This Court is not in a
position to entertain such a contention at this belated
stage as the High Court is not expected to go into the
merits of the case and would have only to see whether
'sufficient cause' had been shown or not. It is conclusively
established that there has been negligence and laches on
the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the matter.
14. I find no irregularity, impropriety or illegality in
the impugned order warranting interference by this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Original Petition lacks merits and stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
K.BABU JUDGE
kkj
--10-
2025:KER:5082
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 318/022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF C.NO.1440/09 DATED
01.12.09
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER DATED 20.04.10
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
25.10.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, THRISSUR
