Dismissed

Nathun Prasad Shaw Alias Sri Nathun Alias Nathun Prasad Sao v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2018WPC/2715/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Labour Court order directing him to pay interest on workmen's compensation. The Court held he had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal which he did not utilize, resulting in serious laches. Consequently, the writ petition was not entertained and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not entertainable due to serious laches and failure to file the statutory appeal in time.

Nathun Prasad Shaw Alias Sri Nathun Alias Nathun… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2715 of 2018

¶3

Nathun Prasad Shaw @ Sri Nathun @ Nathun Prasad Sao, son of Late Sheo Prasad Shaw, Partner, New Globe Transport Corporation, 193, Maharshi Debendra Road Kolkata ... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

District Certificate Officer, Bokaro

¶7

The National Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Kolkata

¶8

Akshay Kumar Jha

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate Mrs. Sweta Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, AC to GP-IV

¶12

-----

¶13

Order No. 04

¶14

Dated: 17.07.2018

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for setting-aside the part of the order dated 08.10.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employee Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in W.C. Case No. 10/2011, whereby the petitioner being the owner of the truck has been directed to pay interest @ 12% from 25.08.2008 over the compensation amount of Rs. 3,35,628/- to the respondent no. 4.

¶16

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the partners in New Globe Transport Corporation, whose truck being registration no. WB 23B 3265 met with an accident in which the respondent no. 4 got injured. He filed an application before the Employee Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 which was subsequently referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employee Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro for adjudication. The petitioner as well as the respondent no. 3 – the National Insurance Company Limited were made party respondents in the said case which was registered as W.C. Case No. 10/2011. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employee Compensation Commissioner-Bokaro vide impugned order dated 08.10.2014 held the Insurance Company as well as the petitioner jointly liable for payment of compensation and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 3,35,628/- i.e., the principal amount of compensation, whereas the petitioner was directed to pay interest @ 12% over the said

¶17

¶18

amount of compensation to the respondent no. 4 w.e.f 25.08.2008.

¶19

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that once the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Employee Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro held that the truck in question was duly ensured with the respondent no. 3 which was directed to pay the principal amount of compensation, there was no justification in directing the petitioner to pay the interest @ 12% over the principal amount of compensation to the respondent no. 4. Thus, the impugned order dated 08.10.2014 is illegal and the same may be set-aside.

¶20

4. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, the learned AC to GP-IV appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, submits that the petitioner had an efficacious/statutory remedy of appeal under provisions of Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Despite the fact that the petitioner contested the compensation case before the learned court below, he did not choose to prefer the statutory appeal and after lapse of about four years, he has invoked the writ petition of this Court. In that view of the matter, the writ petition may not be entertained.

¶21

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner being the owner of the truck in question contested W.C. Case No. 10/2011 before the learned court below. Vide impugned order dated 08.10.2014, the petitioner was directed to pay interest @ 12% over the principal amount of compensation of Rs. 3,35,628/-. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he should have preferred statutory appeal provided under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act in time. However, instead of filing the statutory appeal, the petitioner after lapse of about four years has preferred the present writ petition which, in my considered opinion, cannot be entertained due to serious laches on the part of the petitioner.

¶22

6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶24

Manish

Nathun Prasad Shaw Alias Sri Nathun Alias Nathun Prasad Sao v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathun Prasad Shaw Alias Sri Nathun Alias Nathun Prasad Sao v. State of Jharkhand

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

Ms Mohan Timber Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Umesh Jain Vs Union Of India Through Chairman Ministry Of Steel And Ors.

Ganga Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Maa Mundeshwari Enterprises Represented through One of Its Partner Lalit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Industry Mines and Geology

Rabindra Nath Paul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakshman Giri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. through Surjeet Singh Sethi Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director