Mohd. MoinuddIn and Anr. Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad and Ors. (13.06.1995 - APHC)

Mohd. MoinuddIn and Anr. vs Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad and Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jun 13, 1995

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/434278

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/434278
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Motilal B. Naik, J.
Decided On: Jun 13, 1995
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 15193 of 1991
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial - ex parte Order - Tribunal passed ex parte Order directing petitioner for payment of compensation - application filed by petitioner for setting aside ex parte returned by Tribunal on ground of jurisdiction - prime facia no notice was served on petitioner before passing ex parte Order - held, T...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohd. MoinuddIn and Anr.

Advocate Sri. K. L. Narasaiah

Respondent

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad and Ors.

Advocate Sri. G. Vidyasagar

Legal References

Reported In: 1995(2)ALT437

Excerpt

.....by tribunal on ground of jurisdiction - prime facia no notice was served on petitioner before passing ex parte order - held, tribunal had power to set aside ex parte order passed by it if sufficient grounds made out. - all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to..........order is failed, the tribunal ought to have entertained that application and ought to have passed an appropriate order or merits instead of returning the same. 4. sri g. vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, however, disputed the fact that the tribunal below has passed an ex parte order. it is his case that the order was passed on merits as is evidence from the reading of the said order and therefore, contends that no grounds are warranted for interference in the said order. 5. on hearing these claims and counter claims, this court had directed the learned government pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent to place the records. prima facie, a perusal of the records fails to disclose that the petitioners had received notices. therefore, i am of the view, the order passed by the tribunal at the first instance dated 24-7-1991 is an ex parte order. when an application is filed seeking to set aside the ex parte order, the tribunal ought to have entertained the application and passed an appropriate order on merits on the said application. failure to entertain an application filed would result in miscarriage of justice. therefore, tribunals are to visualise the situation and pass appropriate orders. i hold that when the tribunal can pass an order, it does have the power to set aside the ex parte order, if sufficient grounds are made out. the litigating parties need not be driven from pillar to post. 6. having held that the tribunal below has power to set aside the ex parte order, the impugned order dated 14-11-1991 is quashed. consequently, the tribunal below is directed to pass an appropriate order on merits after hearing both the parties on the application filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 24-7-1991. till such order is passed, the order 24-7-1991 shall not be given effect to it. it is desire that the entire exercise of passing an appropriate order on the application filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Motilal B. Naik, J.

1. This writ petition arises against an order in W.C. Case No. 7 of 89 (F), dated 14-11-1991 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Petitioners are the respondents in the said case W.C. No. 7 of 89 (F) on the file of the first respondent. The dependants of the deceased workman filed the said case seeking compensation on various grounds. It is stated that an ex parte order was passed by the Tribunal below on 24-7-1991 directing the petitioners for payment of Rs. 92,000/- towards compensation. On coming to know that an ex parte order was passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 24-7-1991. The said application was returned by the Tribunal to the petitioners on the ground that it has no jurisdiction, by an order dated 14-11-1991, against which the present writ petition is filed.

3. It is contended by Sri K. L. Narasaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 14-11-1991 returning the application seeking to set aside the ex parte order is illegal inasmuch as the Tribunal below has failed to exercise its inherent powers conferred on it. It is further contended that when the Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order, an application to set aside that order is failed, the Tribunal ought to have entertained that application and ought to have passed an appropriate order or merits instead of returning the same.

4. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, however, disputed the fact that the Tribunal below has passed an ex parte order. It is his case that the order was passed on merits as is evidence from the reading of the said order and therefore, contends that no grounds are warranted for interference in the said order.

5. On hearing these claims and counter claims, this Court had directed the learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent to place the records. Prima facie, a perusal of the records fails to disclose that the petitioners had received notices. Therefore, I am of the view, the order passed by the Tribunal at the first instance dated 24-7-1991 is an ex parte order. When an application is filed seeking to set aside the ex parte order, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the application and passed an appropriate order on merits on the said application. Failure to entertain an application filed would result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, Tribunals are to visualise the situation and pass appropriate orders. I hold that when the Tribunal can pass an order, it does have the power to set aside the ex parte order, if sufficient grounds are made out. The litigating parties need not be driven from pillar to post.

6. Having held that the Tribunal below has power to set aside the ex parte order, the impugned order dated 14-11-1991 is quashed. Consequently, the Tribunal below is directed to pass an appropriate order on merits after hearing both the parties on the application filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 24-7-1991. Till such order is passed, the order 24-7-1991 shall not be given effect to it. It is desire that the entire exercise of passing an appropriate order on the application filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order dated 24-7-1991 shall be completed, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1995 Same Parties Mohd. MoinuddIn and Anr. vs Commissioner for Workmen's Compen... Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge Motilal B. Naik, J.

Labour and Industrial