Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rajbir Kaur & Ors on 2 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:044254
CWP-11289-1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203
CWP-11289-1998
Decided on : 02.04.2024
State of Punjab and others
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rajvir Kaur and others
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate and
Mr. Inderpal Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by (i) The Chief Secretary to
Govt. Punjab, Chandigarh; (ii) Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Information &
Public Relations Department, Chandigarh; and (iii) District Public Relations
Officer, Bathinda, challenging therein the award dated 18.03.1998
(Annexure P-2), passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's
Compensation Act (now re-named as 'the Employees Compensation Act,
1923)-cum-Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Bathinda.
2. As per the claim application filed by the claimants (respondents
No.1 to 4 herein), one Paramjit Singh, Driver of Maruti Van No. PB-01-
0176, expired on 05.03.1994, during the course of employment, and
thereupon, vide Case No i.e. WCA-26/94, his widow, two sons and one
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:044254
CWP-11289-1998 -2-
daughter, claimed compensation from the petitioners herein. While deciding
the claim application, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation
Act-cum-Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Bathinda, held that the liability
of the owner is vicarious for the tort committed by his employee during the
course of his employment. Accordingly, respondents No.1 to 3 in the claim
petition (petitioners No.1 to 3 herein) were held liable to pay the
compensation to the claimants. Total awarded compensation amount was
Rs.1,97,060/- payable within two months, failing which, petitioners were
held liable to pay the amount along with simple interest @ 12% per annum.
3. Learned Senior counsel for respondents No.1 to 4, submits that
the present writ petition has been filed by ignoring the statutory provisions
i.e. Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the
Act').
4. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that the writ petition
against the said award is not maintainable because as per Section 30(1)(a) of
the Act, the order passed by the Commissioner is appealable and according
to the third proviso, the appeal would not be maintainable until it is
accompanied by a certificate of the Commissioner to the effect that the
appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the impugned
order.
Further submits that contention of the petitioners in Paragraph
12 of the writ petition, wherein, it has been specifically stated that
petitioners are left with no other remedy except to invoke extra-ordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court, is totally misconceived, same being totally
contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
For reference, paragraph No.12 of the writ petition is
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:044254
CWP-11289-1998 -3-
reproduced as under:-
"12. That the petitioner has left with no other remedy except to
invoke extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India in this Hon'ble High Court."
5. The statutory period for filing of such appeal is fixed as 60
days. Admittedly, neither the compensation amount has been deposited nor
any such certificate of the Commissioner has been appended with the writ
petition. Thus, no document has been appended with the writ petition to
show that the awarded amount of compensation has been paid to the
claimants, to meet out the very purpose of the Act i.e. to secure the awarded
amount of compensation to rehabilitate the members of the bereaved family.
At this stage, counsel appearing for respondent No.5 refers to
the judgment of this High Court rendered in CWP-679-1985, titled as,
"Piara Singh vs. Commissioner, Workmen Compensation under
Workmen's Compensation (Sr. Sub Judge), Patiala and another", decided
on 03.02.1986, relevant part of which is says as under:-
"(3) Even the learned counsel for the petitioner did not
subscribe to the view that infringement of any fundamental right
would be involved in cases of grant of compensation under the
Act. So far as the other reason is concerned, the matter stands
concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sales Tax
Officer, Jodhpur and another v. M/s Shiv Ratan G. Mohatta (3),
where a similar contention was turned down in the following
terms : --
"We are of the opinion that the High Court should have
declined to entertain the petition. No exceptional
circumstances exist in this case to warrant the exercise of
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. It has not
been the object of Article 226 to convert High Courts into
original or appellate assessing authorities whenever an
assessee chose to attack an assessment order on the
ground that a sale was made in the course of import and,
therefore, exempt from. tax. It was urged on behalf of the
assessee that they would have had to deposit sales tax,
•while filing an appeal. Even if this is so, does this mean
that in every case in which the assessee has to deposit
sales tax, he can bypass the remedies provided by the Sales
JAWALA RAM Tax Act ? Surely not. There must be something more, in a
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:044254
CWP-11289-1998 -4-
case to warrant the entertainment of a petition under
Article 226, something going to the root of the jurisdiction
of the Sales Tax Officer, something to show that it would
be a case of palpable injustice to the assessees to force him
to adopt the remedies provided by the Act.
Consequently, the simple fact that the compensation awarded has
to be deposited before an appeal can be entertained, would
furnish no ground to entertain the writ petition bypassing the
statutory remedy of appeal. Moreover, the Workmen's
Compensation Act is a welfare legislation meant to provide
speedy remedy to the workmen in case of injuries received by
them in the course of their employment. The Legislature in its
wisdom has laid down that the workman must get the
compensation awarded before the matter is allowed to be taken
up in appeal by the employer. The entertainment of the petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution would obviously defeat the
intent and purpose of the legislation and it would be only in rare
and exceptional cases where the order on the face of it shows
violation of some statute or inherent lack of jurisdiction that the
court would be justified in entertaining the petition under Article
226 of the Constitution bypassing the statutory remedy. We are,
therefore, of the considered opinion that the decision in Baru
Ram's case (supra) was not correctly arrived at and overrule the
same.
(4) As in the present, case no exceptional circumstance has
been shown apart from the fact that the compensation awarded
has to be deposited before the appeal can be maintained, we find
no reason to entertain this petition which is accordingly
dismissed with costs and the petitioner is relegated to the
ordinary remedy under the Act."
6. Thus, in the case of Piara Singh (supra), the award passed
under the Act, was challenged by filing writ petition before the High Court,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The very object and intent of
this legislation, i.e. the Workmen's Compensation Act (now re-named as
'the Employees Compensation Act, 1923), to get the awarded amount
deposited prior to the filing of appeal under the said Act, has also been
highlighted, in the said case.
In the present case, a person expired while in service, i.e. on
05.03.1994, and compensation amount was declared vide award dated
18.03.1998. I have also examined the previous orders passed by the Co-
JAWALA RAM ordinate Bench(s) of this Court and find that there was never any stay order
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:044254
CWP-11289-1998 -5-
against the operation of the impugned award. The Court is also informed
that till date, neither the compensation amount has been deposited before the
authority concerned nor paid to the claimants.
7. Furthermore, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the
petitioners herein, against whom the impugned award has been passed, are
State Government and/or its authorities, i.e. (1) State of Punjab, (2)
Secretary to Government Punjab, Information and Public Relation
Department, and (3) District Public Relation Officer, Bathinda. On the basis
of mere technicalities, the petitioners, who are well acquainted with law, its
lengthy procedure and aims and objects of the Statute, i.e. Workmen's
Compensation Act, cannot be expected to sit idle with closed eyes, and not
to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the needy family. Moreover,
a frivolous attempt has been made by filing present writ petition before this
Court, without pointing out any special reason of doing so, merely to avoid
deposit of the compensation amount, for not filing appeal.
Looking at the conduct of the petitioners, this Court is
constrained to impose cost amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only),
against the petitioners/State of Punjab, to be deposited with the Punjab and
Haryana High Court Bar Association Lawyers Family Welfare Fund, in
State Bank of India, Current Account No. 41564846387, IFSC Code:
SBIN0050306, within a period of two weeks from today.
Copy of the receipt of deposit of cost amount, be also produced
on the adjourned date.
8. In view of the facts and statutory provisions addressed and
recorded herein-above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned
award, rather, there is no point in entertaining the present writ petition.
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:044254
CWP-11289-1998 -6-
Accordingly, same is dismissed being not maintainable.
However, at this stage, present petition is adjourned for a short purpose i.e.
to apprise this Court as to why the compensation amount along with interest
has not been paid till date to the claimants and to produce the copy of the
receipt of the deposit of the cost amount.
9. List again on 15.04.2024 for the said short purpose only.
To be shown in the urgent motion list.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 02, 2024
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
