Court No. - 47
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15064 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ajmer Respondent :- Commissioner Workmen And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais,Ganesh Datt Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The petitioner is aggrieved in consequence of an order of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, passed in Case No. WCA 29 of 2012 ordering the petitioner- employer to pay the dependants of the deceased employee Brahm Singh a sum of Rs.3,79,120/- by way of compensation in consequence of a fatal accident that the deceased employee met, while working on the petitioner's tractor trolly. The said order is appeallable under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 before this Court. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he has already filed an appeal from the said order to this Court being First Appeal From Order No.45(Def) of 2019 Ajmer Vs. Sulochana and others wherein this Court has issued notice on the Delay Condonation Application. He has come up by way of the present petition seeking to quash the auction and sale notice dated 22.3.2019 issued by respondent No.2 in enforcement of the order dated 25.07.2018 that is impugned in First Appeal From Order No.45(Def) of 2019. There is a further relief claiming by way of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to proceed further with the auction and sale pursuant to the impugned notice dated 22.3.2019 till the disposal of the stay application filed in First Appeal From Order No.45(Def) of 2019.
Sri Sanjay Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1,2,3 and 4 and has opposed the motion to admit this petition to hearing.
Considering the fact that what has been challenged in the present petition is merely a process pursuant to the order dated 25.7.2018 passed in Case No.WCA 29 of 2012 that has already been impugned in appeal from that order before this Court, this kind of a challenge is not at all one that can be said to afford a valid cause of action for the present writ petition. The orders impugned are only a process that has been issued in consequence of the order impugned in the pending appeal. All reliefs which the petitioner desires, he can seek in the appeal against the order passed under Section 30(1).
Thus, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed but with the clear liberty that the petitioner would be free to pursue his remedy in the appeal.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 NSC