9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner and thereafter to adjudicate the liability issue regarding making payment, determine the same after giving opportunity to exercise power under Section 19 and 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 In terms of Section 10-B of the Act, in case of any fatal accident or serious bodily injuries, it requires the employer to give appropriate notice to the Commissioner and apart from the same, liability of the Principal employer in case of contractor failed to pay the same is also vested under the Act - Contractor is prohibited from the payment of liability under Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and it has been declared as null and void and any settlement of compensation in respect of fatal injuries must be in satisfactory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.4,25,475/-. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 27.09.2004. In the application for interim stay, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the amount towards compensation as ordered by the first respondent was already paid by the fifth respondent, which was also a Government of India company to the sixth respondent, who is the father of the deceased Chellapandian. In the light of the said statement, interim stay was granted. 4. The contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition was two fold. The first contention is that the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour II has no jurisdiction to straight away pass the award of compensation without adjudicating the issue by not only making them liable to pay the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as Division Bench as a matter, of course held that when the parties have alternative remedy provided under the Act, the writ petition filed against the order of Commissioner is not maintainable. In one such judgment reported in 2002(1)CTC 675 (P.Mariappan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Palayamkottai and another), this Court held that writ petition filed in order to avoid compulsory deposit of amount awarded and to overcome period of limitation is not maintainable. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2010) 4 SCC 772, merely because, a condition of pre-deposit was imposed, that by itself cannot be a ground to bypass a statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself is the appellate forum. 33. Reference may be made to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court rendered in Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes, which was also a decision in a fiscal law. Commenting on the exercise of wide jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, subject to self-imposed limitation, this Court went on to explain: (AIR p. 1423, para 7) 7. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to. The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. and Secy. of State v. Mask and Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine. 35.In this case, liability of the appellant is not created under any common law principle but, it is clearly a statutory liability and for which the statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nity to exercise power under Section 19 and 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In fact, under the said Act, in terms of Section 10-B of the Act, in case of any fatal accident or serious bodily injuries, it requires the employer to give appropriate notice to the Commissioner and apart from the same, liability of the Principal employer in case of contractor failed to pay the same is also vested under the Act. The Contractor is prohibited from the payment of liability under Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and it has been declared as null and void and any settlement of compensation in respect of fatal injuries must be in satisfactory to the authorities. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
