Allowed

Yogesh Sharma v. the Employees Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Labour Commissioner Bareilly and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2021WRIC/3312/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that keeping a compensation claim in abeyance based solely on a non-binding SIT order was a flawed exercise of power. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to decide the pending claim within six months.

What did the court decide?

The order keeping the proceeding in abeyance dated 30.3.2019 is set aside. Case No. 197-ECA of 2015 to be decided within six months.

Yogesh Sharma Vs the Employees… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3312 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Yogesh Sharma Respondent :- The Employees Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Labour Commissioner Bareilly And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajai Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

This Court, vide orders passed on various dates, had directed the Standing Counsel to place the status of the compensation case and in the last order dated 17.3.2021, this Court had cleared that no further time shall be granted to the Standing Counsel. Today when the matter is taken up, the Standing Counsel prays for further time to which I am not inclined to grant time in view of the stop order dated 17.3.2021. Thus, the matter is being decided on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents on record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be a driver employed with the respondent no. 3, for driving Car No. U.P. 14Q 9294. It is the claim of the petitioner that an accident took place on 06.12.2014 in which he sustained grievous injury and aggrieved against which he filed a claim petition before the respondent no. 1 which was registered as Case No. 197-ECA of 2015 (Yogesh Sharma vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

¶8

and another).

¶9

The written statements were filed by the owner and Insurance Company of the vehicle in question and, subsequently, the issues were framed. During the pendency of the case an application dated 25.5.2017 was filed by the counsel for the Insurance Company, stating therein that in the claim petition it was alleged that on 06.12.2014 the petitioner sustained injuries on account of accident with a tempo which appears that to be suspicious and prayed that in terms of the order of the High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2015 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramawati and others) whereby the SIT has been constituted, the case be referred to the SIT. The said application was filed by the counsel for the Insurance Company without any supporting affidavit. On the said application, the respondent no. 1 passed an order on 30.3.2019 directing that as report of the SIT has not been made available as such the case is kept in abeyance. The said order is under challenge in the present proceeding.

¶10

The counsel for the petitioner argues that the order passed in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2015 dated 07.10.2015 pertain to certain cases whereas the case of the petitioner is not even referred to in the list of cases in which SIT has been constituted. He further argues that even in the said order there is no mandamus for keeping the claim petitions pending as such for both the reasons the order impugned is bad in law.

¶11

I have perused the order dated 07.10.2015 passed in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2015 whereby the SIT was constituted by the High Court for investigation of fraudulent cases which were being filed on the basis of insurance policies. In the said order there is no mention of stay of proceedings even in respect of the cases which were subject matter of the allegations levelled in the said civil revision. A perusal of the said order shows that there was no restriction on deciding the cases filed under the Employees' State Insurance Act even in respect of the cases which were subject matter of cases referred to in the order passed by the High Court. A perusal of the Employees' State Insurance Act makes it clear that a mandate casts on the court constituted under the said Act for decision on payment of compensation to the person entitled to the same.

¶12

Clearly, the statute, namely Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is a socio-beneficial legislation and enacted for providing certain benefits to the eligible persons in the event of certain eventualities. Considering the nature of the statute, it is desirable that the statute should be allowed to achieve the laudable objectives in an unhindered manner. Any delay in disposal of the case militates against the spirit of the statute itself.

¶13

In the present case, there is no order of the High Court to stay the proceedings in respect of the claims filed before the Tribunal including in the cases which were subject matter of reference

¶14

leading to passing of the order dated 07.10.2015 in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2015 as such I have no hesitation in holding that the order impugned dated 30.3.2019 keeping the proceeding in abeyance was in an improper exercise of power. Accordingly, the order dated 30.3.2021 is set aside.

¶15

Considering the fact that the application for payment of compensation was filed on 17.8.2015 and almost six years have lapsed, the present petition is disposed off with directions upon the respondent no. 1 to decide the Case No. 197-ECA of 2015 (Yogesh Sharma vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. And another) as expeditiously as possible and certainly within a period of six months from the date of filing of the order before the respondent no. 1.

¶16

The petition is disposed off in terms of the said directions.

¶17

Copy of the order downloaded from the website of Allahabad High Court shall be accepted/treated as certified copy of the order.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.7.2021 Puspendra

Yogesh Sharma v. the Employees Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Labour Commissioner Bareilly and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Sharma v. the Employees Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Labour Commissioner Bareilly and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Lal and Others Vs State of U.P.

Jabar Singh Vs State

Ram Swaroop Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sarvesh and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Shiv Sagar Chauhan (Minor) Vs Board of High School and Intermedicate Education Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Sanjay Yadav Vs Union of India and 2 Others