1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant-original opponent No.1 has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.04.2010, passed by the Ex-Officio Commissioner for the Workman Compensation , Labour Court, Surat, in Misc. Application No.8 of 2009, whereby the Commissioner has rejected the said application.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 3.12.1999, while one Prakash Gulabsingh-respondent herein was on duty in the establishment of the present appellant, he met with an accident and sustained injuries on his right hand's finger. Therefore, he filed WC(NF) Application No.8 of 2000, before the Workman Compensation Commissioner, for compensation. The present appellant did not take part in the proceedings. Therefore, the Commissioner after hearing the learned advocate for the applicant-respondent herein has decide the matter and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.56,382/-. Against which, the appellant filed M.C.A. No. 3 of 2001 for restoration. The said application was rejected on 12.1.2006. Against the said order, the present appellant again filed Misc. Application No.8 of 2009 for restoration of the order passed in M.C.A. No. 3 of 2009. The Commissioner vide its judgement and order dated 17.04.2010 rejected the said application. Hence, this appeal.
3. I have heard learned advocate for the appellant. The Commissioner while considering the case of the appellant has observed as under:-
"(iii) It appears that the compensation case under workman compensation Act has been filed by the present opponent/workman in this Court against present applicant/owner i.e. Sheetal Dying. The notice was also served to the owner. Present applicant/owner was appeared through his advocate in that case but he was not filed his written statement and did not take part actively in the proceedings. So this court i.e. Ex Officio Commissioner for the W.C. Act has delivered judgement on dated 8.1.20901. Thenafter Misc. Application No.3/2001 was filed by the present applicant/owner for restore the original application which was also rejected by this forum on dated 12.01.2006.
Thenafter, the owner did not comply the order which was passed by this Court in the W.C. (N.F.) application No.8/2000. So workman has filed a recovery application No. 9/06 u/s 31 of the W.C. Act for implementation of that order and recovery certificate was issued but owner has not follow the order of this Court. So workman has filed a Special Civil Application No. 6746 of 2008 before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for seeking appropriate direction to District Development Officer as implementation of the order. Owner also appeared before the High Court and Hon'ble High Court has given a chance to the owner to obtain any prohibitory order on or before 14/11/2008. But owner has not obtained any prohibitory order from the appropriate forum. So recovery certificate is implemented and recovered the amount from the owner and deposit the same amount in this Court by the district development Officer on 17/9/09 as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court.
Then after the amount of compensation is distributed on dated 18/11/09 as Rs.27,280/- be paid to the workman by Account payee cheque and remain amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be invested in fixed deposit in nationalized bank for three years, but amount is not paid to the workman.
Thenafter the owner has filed this application on 16.12.2009. Now looking to the facts of the case W.C.(N.F.) application No.8/2000. The case was filed by the workman on dated 3/3/2000. So workman has been fighting a legal battle for getting compensation from the owner since 2000. But looking the practice of the owner the workman did not get any single paisa from owner as compensation till today. So looking to the attitude of the present applicant/owner has not disclosed any reason to which W.C.(N.F.) application was also rejected by this Court. Hence, this application is not maintainable and required to be rejected...."
4. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Commissioner has committed no error in dismissing the application of the appellant. Apart from that learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to show anything from the record to take a different view in the matter. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
5. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, the Civil Application does not survive, therefore, the same is disposed of accordingly.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top