Orissa High Court
(Through Hybrid Mode) vs Commissioner For Employee'S on 29 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11030 of 2019
(Through hybrid mode)
Sr. Divisional Manager, NIC Ltd. .... Petitioner
DO-II
Mr. P. K. Mahali, Advocate
-versus-
Commissioner for Employee's .... Opposite Parties
Compensation com Deputy Labour
Commissioner and others
Mr. T. Pattanayak, ASC
Mr. D. K. Mohapatra, Advocate
for O.P.3
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
Order No. 29.08.2022
03. 1. Petitioner is the insurance company. Mr. Mahali, learned advocate,
appears on its behalf and submits, his client has impugned order dated 30th
August, 2016 passed by Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Cuttack. By impugned order the Commissioner recalled
earlier order dated 22nd November, 2010. He submits, his client had earlier
filed W. P.(C) no.4303 of 2015, which was disposed of on order dated 26th
March, 2015, made by coordinate Bench. A paragraph from said order is
extracted and reproduced below.
"Be that as it may, since the matter involved in the W.C.
Case Nos.1189-D, 1191-D, 1192-D/1999 was already
closed by the order dtd. 22.11.2010, there was no occasion
for the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to sit over
the matter again and pass further order thereon. It may be
that conclusion has been arisen due to not bringing the
order dtd. 22.11.2010 to the notice of the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner, when the proceeding was
taken up on 7.02.2015. Considering this to be a mistake on
record I feel it appropriate to direct the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner to revisit the issue."
2. Mr. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate
appears on behalf of State and Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate for opposite
party no.3 (beneficiary).
3. Principal amount to have been paid was Rs.3,18,352/- in respect of
four beneficiaries, out of whom opposite party no.3 herein was paid his
share. By order dated 4th November, 2010, the Commissioner recorded that
the principal amount was paid on delay and disbursed. However, there was
the interest component yet to be paid amounting to Rs.3,63,300/-. Direction
was for payment thereof, failing which appropriate order to be made. The
insurance company on 22nd November, 2010 moved the Commissioner to
say that the delay caused was due to the file having been seized by vigilance
department. The Commissioner was moved and recalled said order dated 4th
November, 2010. By impugned order the Commissioner has in effect
restored order dated 4th November, 2010. Petitioner does not want to pay
Rs.3,63,300/-, being interest on delayed payment.
4. By impugned order the Commissioner found that of Rs.6,81,652/-,
petitioner had deposited leaving balance of Rs.3,63,300/-. Petitioner, as
aforesaid, had filed for review before the Commissioner and by order dated
22nd November, 2010 got recalled attachment order dated 4th November,
2010. Mr. Mahali submits, long time thereafter, opposite party no.3 again
moved the Commissioner and thereupon impugned order was passed.
5. The Commissioner, it appears, gave reasons in impugned order for
making the same. Three questions were framed and answered. Relevant text
from impugned order is extracted and reproduced below.
"On the other hand the claimants had challenged
all the grounds taken by the opp. Party no.2 in their review
application. Now the crucial question lying for
determination by this court are as such;
(1) Whether the orders dated 22.11.2010 passed by this
court in consider earlier order dated 10.06.2010 and
25.06.2010 within the knowledge of the claimants/parties?
(2) Whether this court had jurisdiction for recalling
attachment order dtd. 22.11.2010 by dint of exercise power
under section 31 of the W.C. Act, 1923?
(3) Whether the review petition filed by the opp. party
no.2 are tenable in law?
In reply question no.1, it is perused from case
record that in fact the copy of the petition filed by the opp.
party no.2 for recalling attachment order dtd.04.11.2010
had not been served to the claimants/applicant. The order
dated-18.06.2010, 25.06.2010 and 22.11.2010 passed by
this court without the knowledge of the claimants. The
question no.2 and 3 are based on law. The law is very clear
after pronouncement of judgment, this court had became a
functus afficio and the language enshrine in section 6 of
W.C. Act 1923 and Rule 32 of 1924 are totally contrary to
the grounds and prayer made by M/s. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. in their review petition. Again our Hon'ble High
Court too in the case of B.M., NIA Co. Ltd. Vrs. Laxman
Muduli and others held "A person cannot approbate by
accepting the benefit and at the same time reprobate by
denying of it other direction (2016) (I) TAC 760(O). On
considering the factual aspects and legal backdrops of
case, I opined the review application filed by the opp. party
no.2 carries no merit to stand. Hence. Rejected. "
6. Ground for earlier recalling the attachment order, accepted by the
Commissioner, was that file of the insurance company had been seized by
the Vigilance. This seizure became reason for it to not pay the interest
component. Furthermore, it appears from impugned order that the recall
order dated 22nd November, 2010 was noticed by the Commissioner in
revisiting the matter and making impugned order. Hence, direction made in
petitioner's earlier writ petition was complied with. The Commissioner said,
law is very clear, in referring to section 6 of Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 and rule 32 of the 1924 rules, after pronouncement of judgment the
office had become functus officio. Nothing has been demonstrated
otherwise. There is no reason to interfere and no order can be made.
7. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Prasant
