Vikramaditya Chandel Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl)

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) Village Chilhati, Chowki Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Through, The Superintending Engineer (O And M) Circle, Cspdcl, Bilaspur

¶10

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) Village Chilhati, Chowki Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Through The Executive Engineer

¶11

Nirmala Nayak W/o Late Sukhram Nayak R/o Village Chilhati, Chowki Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

Malti D/o Sukhram Nayak R/o Village Chilhati, Chowki Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

Mansi D/o Sukhram Nayak R/o Village Chilhati, Chowki Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

Roshni D/o Sukhram Nayak R/o Village Chilhati, Chowki Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

Laxman S/o Sukhram Nayak R/o Village Chilhati, Chowki Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.N. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Varund Sharma, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.19 11:43:36 +0530

¶21

2

¶22

16/01/2026

¶23

The petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 Labour Court, Bilaspur in case No. 54/ECA/MCC/2025 by which the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside ex-parte award was passed on 27.03.2019 has been rejected on 11.09.2025.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that objection raised by the Registry that the appeal has been filed is incorrect objection as the petitioner has been deprived for opportunity of hearing, therefore, inconformity with principle of natural justice this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can very well examine the correctness in decision making process adopted by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act and would pray for over ruling the objection raised by the Registry and would pray for admission of the case. He would further submit that there is glaring violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very much maintainable

¶25

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of fling of an appeal under Section 30(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶27

From perusal of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 it is quite vivid, that the appeal is to be filed against the award, awarding the compensation and in the present case the award has been passed against

¶28

3

¶29

the petitioner on 27.03.2019, though it is an ex-parte award and thereafter he has moved an application for setting aside ex-parte order order 9 Rule 13 CPC.Even if the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation rejected the application for setting aside ex-parte which arises substantial question of law therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse is available to him under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 by filing statutory appeal.

¶30

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Certified copy of the award be returned to the counsel for the petitioner after retaining photocopy of the same.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶34

Santosh

Vikramaditya Chandel v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikramaditya Chandel v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl)

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

Mitesh Chouksey Vs South East Central Railway

Kandhilal Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. Kamal Kumar Bajaj Vs Union of India

Dushyant Nagarchi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivkumar Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

St. Xavier,S High School Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited