Shri Ram Niwas Pal Vs Smt. Chander Fula and Ors.

The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Award dated 27.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner Employee’s Commissioner [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”].

¶12

At the outset, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that in the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Court, it has been observed that the Petitioner has chosen not to avail the statutory remedy of filing of an Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] but has instead filed the present Writ Petition.

¶13

2.1 Learned Counsel further seeks to rely upon a judgment of the

¶14

W.P.(C) 853/2019 Page 1 of 5

¶15

Coordinate Bench in M/s Gulmehar Gren Produce Company v.

¶16

Comisner under Employes Compensati Act (North

¶17

- East) Labour

¶18

Departmn, Gov.fNCT oDelhi& Anr. 1 wherein the Coordinate Bench while dealing with a similar issue has dismissed a Petition holding that the Petitioner has a limited remedy to challenge such an award by filing an Appeal under Section 30 of the Act.

¶19

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 further submits that this objection has also been taken by the Respondent No.1 in her Counter Affidavit as well.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has been recently engaged in the matter and that the present Petition was filed under the wrongful legal advice given to the Petitioner by his previous Counsel. He further submits that a party must not be made to suffer for the mistake of his Counsel.

¶21

The challenge in the present Appeal is to an Order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the Authority/Commissioner Employee’s Compensation [hereinafter referred to as “CEC”] directing that the Petitioner is liable to make payment in the sum of Rs. 7,36,680/- on account of employee death compensation as payable to the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased employee. Additional directions were also passed including that penalty under Section 4(A)(3)(b) of the Act be imposed on the Petitioner.

¶22

The challenge to the Award passed by the CEC under Section 30 of the Act is required to be made by way of an Appeal. Section 30(1)(b) of the

¶23

1 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7735

¶24

W.P.(C) 853/2019 Page 2 of 5

¶25

Act sets out that an Award of lump-sum compensation or disallowing of a claim in full or part shall only be challenged by an Appeal filed before the High Court. The provisions further provides that an Appeal shall not lie unless a substantial question of law is involved and the amount in dispute is not less than Rs. 10,000/-. Section 30 of the Act reads as follows:

¶26

“30. Apeals

¶27

—(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely—

¶28

(a) nordeawig scompenta lusmwhetr by way

¶29

of redemption of a half-monthly payment or thewisor disalwng a climnfuorpts ;

¶30

(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4-A;]

¶31

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

¶32

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased [employee], or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

¶33

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12; or

¶34

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

¶35

Provide tha no apel shal lie aginst any orde unles a subtanil qeoflwis nvoedth aplnd,i thecas

¶36

of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than ten

¶37

thousand rpesuch igeramonts heCntralGovm may, bnotifcheOlGzsp

¶38

xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶39

[Emphasis supplied]

¶40

6.1 A reading of the provision shows that an order directing compensation as has been passed by the Court of the Commissioner of the Employees’ Compensation under the EC Act is amenable to filing of an Appeal and not of a Writ Petition. Given that an alternative efficacious remedy is available

¶41

W.P.(C) 853/2019 Page 3 of 5

¶42

to the Petitioner, a Writ Petition cannot be entertained.

¶43

It is no longer res integra that where the statute provides for an alternate efficacious remedy, the aggrieved party is required to avail of the statutory remedy. The Supreme Court in the case of Transpot & Dock

¶44

Workes Unio & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr. 2 has held that it is

¶45

well settled that the writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and it should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternate remedy available with the Appellant. It was also observed that adopting an over liberal approach should be avoided and instead settled legal principles should be followed. The relevant extract of Transpot &Dck case is below:

¶46

“14. In our opinion the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is wel setld

¶47

tha writ jurisdcton is discretonay jurisdcton, and the discreton should not ordinaly be exrcisd if ther is an alterniv remdy avilbe to the apelnt. In this case ther was a clear alterniv remdy avilb tothe apelnt byraisng an industral ipte and henc we fail to understa why the High Court entraid the writ petion. It seems to us that some High Courts by adopting an over liberal approach are unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles. However, we may also consider the case on merits.”

¶48

[Emphasis supplied]

¶49

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gulmehar Gren Produce

¶50

Company case has in similar circumstances where an order was passed by the CEC, held that the employee had the limited remedy of challenge under Section 30 of the Act and that filing a writ petition was only intended to evade requirement of pre deposit of the awarded amount and should not be permitted. The relevant extract of Gulmehar Gren Produce Company

¶51

2 (2011) 2 SCC 575

¶52

W.P.(C) 853/2019 Page 4 of 5

¶53

case is reproduced below:

¶54

—10. It is trite when petitioner is

¶55

remdy of apel, the writ petion under Article 26/7 of the Constiu fIdacbelwr.

¶56

14. The petitioner being employer has a limited remedy to challenge the impugned Award of the CEC under Section 30 of the EC Act, 1923 on question of law. The ptionrguse ofthpresn witoneds

¶57

to evad the requimnt of pre - deposit of the awrde amount under section 30byflghapHCurmd

¶58

orders which cannot be permitted.“ [Emphasis supplied]

¶59

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶60

The Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The liberty as sought for is so granted.

¶61

It is directed that the amount deposited with this Court in terms of the order dated 19.02.2019, shall remain deposited pending the outcome of the challenge by the Petitioner.

¶62

It is clarified that this Court has not examined the matter on merits. The rights and contentions of both the parties are left open.

¶63

The parties shall act based on a digitally signed copy of the order.

¶64

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶65

AUGUST 4, 2025/pa/g.joshi

¶66

W.P.(C) 853/2019 Page 5 of 5

Shri Ram Niwas Pal v. Smt. Chander Fula and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ram Niwas Pal v. Smt. Chander Fula and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunshine Anand Swain Vs University Grant Commission & Anr.

Gaurav Punj Vs the New Delhi Municipal Council

Kuldeep Kumar Mittal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Vikash Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Swati Saista Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pheran Singh Yadav & Anr. Vs MCD

Demas Developers Private Limited Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Lecoanet Hemant India Pvt. Ltd. (Successor / Transferee Company of Ip Support Services (India) Pvt. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1), Delhi

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vinod Kumar & Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs Sanjeev Kumar

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rahul Masih & Ors.

Gian Singh Vs Sh Suresh Kumar & Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Ekta Goel

Saurabh Sharma Vs Union of India & Anr.