Allowed

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited(Bsnl), v. The Commissioner forEmployees Compensation Act,1923

Telangana HC15 Sept 2016WP/30624/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of a.compensation order passed without an opportunity of hearing. The court set aside the impugned order as it was unreasoned and violated principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.08.2016 is set aside and the Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited(Bsnl)… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶2

Writ Petition No.30624 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Notice issued. Learned Government Pleader for Labour (AP), accepted the notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent. With the consent of both the counsel, the present writ petition is taken up for disposal.

¶5

Vide present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the 1^st respondent passed in R.C.No.B/ 3521/ 2014, dated 10.08.2016.

¶6

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to the impugned order dated 10.08.2016, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,65,160/ - towards compensation by way of demand draft in favour of the ‘Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Visakhapatnam’ payable on State Bank of India, Maharnipeta Branch, Visakhapatnam, within 15 days of receipt of the order. The said order was passed by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation/ Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. It also contains a ‘Note’ that as per Section 4A(3) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923, if the General Manager, Telecom Department, Visakhpatnam, is in default in paying the compensation due within one month from the date it fell due, the management shall in addition to the amount of arrears, has to pay simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any Scheduled Bank as may be specified by the Central Government by its notification.

¶7

On perusal of the said order, it is clear that the order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As

¶8

¶9

stated by the petitioner in the present writ petition, nowhere in the impugned order, it is mentioned that opportunity was granted and after hearing the petitioner, the order was passed. Thus, it is clear that the order was passed without following the principles of natural justice.

¶10

Moreover, this order is not a reasoned one. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.08.2016 is hereby set aside. The Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation/ Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhaptnam, is at liberty to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed.

¶12

_____________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J Date: 15.09.2016 BSS

¶13

¶14

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

¶15

¶16

Writ Petition No.30624 of 2016

¶17

Date: 15.09.2016

¶18

BSS

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited(Bsnl), v. The Commissioner forEmployees Compensation Act,1923

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited(Bsnl), v. The Commissioner forEmployees Compensation Act,1923

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

Smt. M.Sunitha, Vs The Reserve Bank of India

Reddy Ramayyamma Vs The District Collector

Allapati Murali, Vs The State of Telangana represented by Its Principal

Pusala Chandra Sekhar, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its PrI. Secretary

Ganiga Chenna Kesavulu Vs a. Y. Reddy

M/s. Hospital Supply Company Vs The State of Telangana