The Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay the award amount with interest as per orders in W.C.No.114 of 1999 dated 24.01.2000 as passed by the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner is a painter. The first respondent employed the petitioner for painting and white washing their building at Karapakkam during November 1998. On 12.11.1998, while doing the above said work, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries on his wrist and head and other injuries. The petitioner, at the instance of the administrator of the 1st respondent took treatment in the private hospital and thereafter at Government Royapettah Hospital. The petitioner states that due to above said incident, he suffered disability and made a claim for compensation against the 1st respondent which was refused. Hence, the petitioner filed the claim before the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Teynampet, Chennai in W.C.No.114 of 1999. The 1st respondent employer was set ex parte on 23.11.1999 and after completing the enquiry, the 2nd respondent passed an award on 24.01.2000. The 2nd respondent initiated action against the first respondent for recovery of the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner which was challenged by the first respondent in W.P.No.22757 of 2007. The said W.P.No.22757 of 2007 was dismissed on 19.06.2008. The 3rd respondent is said to have taken some steps for recovery of the award amount but in vain. Though the Writ Petition was dismissed, the Authority did not take effective steps for recovery of the award amount. In view of the inaction on the part of the Authority, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to initiate prompt action for recovery of the amount and pleaded that the petitioner is is dire need of the compensation.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner made several attempts to enforce the award of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent employer is managing to prolong the litigation on some pretext or the other. The 1st respondent at the time of final diposal pleaded that they have filed an application to set aside the exparte award and therefore no relief should be granted now.
4. As requested by both the parties, this Court by order dated 20.11.2009 directed the second respondent to dispose of the applications filed by 1st respondent for setting aside the ex parte order dated 23.11.1999 and the delay condonation petition within a period of one week. Now it is stated that the second respondent by order dated 30.11.2009 rejected the applications filed for setting aside the ex parte order and the delay condonation application. A Photocopy of the order is produced before this Court today. As such, there can be no impediment at this point of time to implement the order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II. The 1st respondent is bound to compensate the petitioner as per the award and the authorities have to ensure the recovery properly.
5. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to take necessary steps immediately in accordance with law for recovery of the amount as per the award as early as possible preferably on or before 30.01.2010. No costs.
Office to note:-
1.Issue copy within a week
2.Send a copy to the concerned authority immediately.
arr/ts To
1.Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre, Rep. by its Secretary and Organizer Mrs.Rani Krishnan 35,East Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai 4
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Thenampet, Chennai- 18.
3.The Land Revenue Inspector, Pallikaranai, Tambaram, Chennai