Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Labour Court Order Under Workmen's Compensation Act: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a writ petition filed against an order passed by the Labour Court under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not maintainable.
The above ruling came in a writ petition which was filed challenging a 2017 judgement passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in a Workmen Compensation case. The Labour Court had directed the petitioner, Sanjay Karpri, to deposit a compensation amount of ₹3,36,000 within three months, which the petitioner had contested.
As per the factual matrix of the case a compensation claim was filed by one Gomdi Rout, the mother of the deceased Kumod Rout, seeking ₹5,00,000 in compensation. Kumod Rout - the deceased - who was aged around 20 years, was engaged by the petitioner- Sanjay Karpri for carrying stones on his tractor at Amaya Pahari. In the course of loading stones, Kumod sustained injury from a stone and he died on the spot. After this incident, Gomdi Rout lodged a complaint under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections of the Mines and Explosives Act in October 2010.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the judgment delivered by the Labour Court was illegal and arbitrary, emphasizing that the Labour Court had wrongly concluded that the petitioner was the owner of the tractor involved in the incident and the employer of the deceased. It was submitted that no charge sheet had been filed against the petitioner by the police, although the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the matter. The petitioner further contended that during cross-examination, he had admitted to neither seeing the tractor nor witnessing the incident. However, the Labour Court based its findings on the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and issued directions to the petitioner to pay the compensation.
Furthermore, it was argued the petitioner had already been acquitted in the criminal case by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka and as such the judgment passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and it may be set aside in the interest of justice.
On the other hand, the respondent's counsel submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable, pointing out that under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the petitioner had the option to file an appeal against the Labour Court's order. The counsel also argued that the petitioner should have filed an appeal by depositing the amount of compensation and after obtaining the certificate of the Commissioner but instead of doing the same, h preferred the writ petition only to avoid payment of compensation.
A single bench of Justice Sanjay Prasad, after examining the case, noted, “It appears from the impugned judgment that although the petitioner was not charge sheeted, yet the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 304 IPC and on the basis of that finding, the learned Court below has proceeded against the petitioner and after giving notice to both the sides to lead their evidence, the Court below by the impugned judgment dated 22.06.2017 directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.3,36,000/- within three months. However, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition instead of filing the appeal under the provisions of Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.”
Referring to Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Justice Prasad emphasised that the Act provides for an appeal mechanism against compensation orders, and the petitioner should have pursued this alternative remedy rather than filing a writ petition.
“It appears that as per the provisions of the Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, the appeal will be maintainable as an alternative remedy instead of filing writ petition,” he held.
The court also cited precedents from the Supreme Court in India Glycols Limited and Anr. vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal-Malkajgiri and Ors. and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rajvir Kaur and others, while noting that the writ petitions are not maintainable when an appeal process is available under the statute.
In light of these observations, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, while holding that as per the provisions of the Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, the appeal will be maintainable as an alternative remedy instead of filing writ petition. However, the court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal if so advised
Case Title: Anukaran Kandulna V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 150