Prahlad Rai Dodwani Vs Neera Bai

1 - Neera Bai W/o Chamra Rajak, R/o Shiv Mandir, Near Primary School, Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2- Chamra Rajak, S/o Hagru Rajak, R/o Shiv Mandir Near Primary, School Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh, State Electricity Board, New Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,

¶10

4 - Commissioner, For Employees Compensation Act, 1923-Cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri Ayush Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 and 2 : Shri Anand Kesharwani. Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

13/10/2025

¶16

Challenge in this writ petition filed under sections article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 18/09/2015 in Case No. 8/E.C.A./MCC/15 passed by Learned Commissioner, For Employee’s Compensation Labour Court, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Prahlad Rai Vs. Neera Bai & Ors.). By the impugned order an application under under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C filed by the petitioner was rejected.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under section 10 of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘EC’ act) was filed by the respondent No.1 and 2 seeking compensation on account of death of their son Jitendra Rajak during the course of Employment with the petitioner, the son of the

¶18

-2-

¶19

respondent No.1 and 2 died after coming into contact electric wire on 03/07/2010 which resulted into his death. He further submits that the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte before the learned Labour Court and award dated 20/01/2015 was passed in case No.40/WCA/fetal Claim/2013 by the Commissioner, For Employee Compensation Labour Court, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) thereby awarding Rs.03,56,520/- against the petitioner and also 12% interest over it from 04/08/2010. He submits though notices were issued to the petitioner, however they were not served upon the petitioner as in the application for compensation the name of the petitioner was mentioned as Pehlu @ Prahalad Gurudwani, R/o. Sindhi Bada Muktidham Chowk, Sarkanda, Tehsil and District – Bialspur (C.G.). Thereafter the notice was allegedly served through substitute service by publication of the same in the newspaper. As the name of the petitioner is in fact Prahalad Dodwani, S/o. Khiyaldas, Resident of Sindhi Mohalla, Jabdapara, Sarkanda, Tehsil and District – Bilaspur (C.G.), and wrong name was mentioned in the claim application and publication of the substitute service was also in the wrong name, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Commissioner. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the passing of the award, he moved an application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte award. He further submits that in the illegal manner the application was rejected by the impugned order resulting into filing of the this writ petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 vehemently opposes the submissions and submits that the petitioner deliberately failed to appear before the learned Commissioner and his conduct is not worthy of receiving any indulgence by this Court. The respondent No.1 and 2 are deprived of the legitimate compensation on account of death of their son which the petitioner is avoiding to pay. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

As such there is no dispute to the fact that an ex-parte award dated 20/01/2015 was passed in which the name of the petitioner was mentioned as Pehlu @ Prahalad Gurudwani, R./o. Sindhi Bada Muktidham Chowk, Sarkanda, Tehsil and

¶23

-3-

¶24

District – Bialspur (C.G.). The perusal of this writ petition would show that the petition was filed in the name of Prahalad Dodwani, S/o. Khiyaldas, R/o.Sindhi Mohalla, Jabdapara, Sarkanda, Tehsil and District – Bilaspur (C.G.). It appears that inadvertently the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the claim application. In the application under order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC it has been categorically stated that the notices were not served upon the petitioner because of the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the application.

¶25

This Court while issuing notice to the respondent on 04/01/2016 stayed the effect and operation of the impugned award dated 20/01/2015 (Annexure P/3). The interim order is still continued till date.

¶26

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly considering the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the impugned award, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 18/09/2015 in Case No. 8/E.C.A./MCC/15 deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The ex-parte award dated 20/01/2015 passed by the learned Commissioner, Labour Court is hereby set aside and the case No.40/WCA/fetal Claim/2013 is restored to its original number. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the Labour Court, Bilaspur on 01^st December, 2025 and the parties are also at liberty to amend pleadings, lead evidence, file documents etc. It is expected that the learned Labour Court, would make all the endeavor to conclude the proceedings expeditiously with cooperation of the parties preferably within a period of six months from 01st December, 2025.

¶27

Thus this writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

¶28

All the pleadings are disposed of. Records be sent back.

¶29

Sd/- sd/-/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶30

Ashish

Prahlad Rai Dodwani v. Neera Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Rai Dodwani v. Neera Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburam Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

David Paul Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Ratre, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Panchlal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Maa Sharda Indira Mahila Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Goverdhan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh