Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S BAJAJ STEEL AND INDUTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus MAHESH KUMAR PANCHAL AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Bajaj Steel And Indutries Limited And Another v. Mahesh Kumar Panchal And Others - WRIT - C No. 9483 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3684 (16 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9483 of 2006

M/s. Bajaj Steel and Industries Ltd., and another

Versus

Mahesh Kumar Panchal and others

..

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The petitioner has filed writ petition no. 3624 of 2006 in which an order was passed on 19.1.2006 by which the Workman Compensation Commissioner was directed to decide the recall application moved on behalf of the petitioner and its maintainability by means of a reasoned and speaking order. Until the decision of the same, no coercive action was to be taken.

In pursuance of that order, the Workman Compensation Commissioner has passed an order on 31.1.2006 by which he has restored the case of the petitioner on the condition that 50% of the amount of compensation demanded by the order dated 24.5.2005 be deposited.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rakesh Pande contends that the order dated 24.5.2005 was passed ex parte against the petitioner and without deciding whether the liability of the petitioner under the Workman Compensation Act could have been fixed on the them. He also contends that the condition imposed is harsh and arbitrary in view of the fact that it is the petitioners' contention that the liability for an independent workman could not have been fixed on the petitioners as the insurance itself was in the nature of group insurance.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that prima facie the order dated 31.1.2006 is not in the nature of a reasoned or speaking order and suffers from infirmity and is liable to be set aside. I therefore remand the matter back to the Workman Compensation Commissioner, who will look into the matter on merits and give to the petitioners and all parties concerned an opportunity of hearing. The matter will be heard by the Workman Compensation Commissioner expeditiously and shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.1.2006 is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.

Dated 16.2.2006

Rk.6483.06-20


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.