FAO-762-2000 (O&M) --1-- 224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-762-2000 (O&M) Decided on:-22.07.2026 Azad Singh ….Appellant. vs. Shri Dhanpat Rai and others ….Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. ***** HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral) 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an order dated 17.06.1999 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Bhiwani (for short, “the Commissioner”), whereby an application filed under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity, ‘1923 Act”) at the instance of appellant-claimant (injured) seeking restoration of his claim petition which was dismissed in default on 20.02.1998, was rejected. 2. Briefly stating, the appellant-claimant filed claim petition having invoked Section 22 of the 1923 Act before respondent No.3 based on the injuries suffered by him in an alleged accident dated 08.11.1996 arising out of and during the course of employment. Upon notice, respondents No.1 SONIKA 2026.07.28 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-762-2000 (O&M) --2-- and 2 appeared and contested the claim petition. Thereafter, on account of non-appearance of the parties, the claim petition was dismissed in default by respondent No.3 vide its order dated 17.10.1997. However, the same was later restored vide order dated 13.11.1997 passed by respondent No.3 on an application moved on behalf of the appellant-claimant. Subsequently, again on 20.02.1998 on account of non-appearance of the parties, the claim petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution by respondent No.3. Later on, an application for restoration of the claim petition was filed on 17.12.1998, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.06.1999 passed by respondent No.3 on the ground that no solid cause or document was produced by the appellant-claimant in support of his prayer for condonation of delay in moving the restoration application. 3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 17.06.1999 passed by respondent No.3, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as record. 5. In the present case, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant- claimant seeking restoration of his claim petition, which was ordered to be dismissed in default on 20.02.1998, was declined on the ground that no solid cause was made out and no document in support was produced while seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 6. In the humble opinion of this Court, if respondent No.3 was of the view that no material document was produced in support of the prayer made by the appellant for condonation of delay alongwith the restoration application, rather than adjudicating upon the same in a premature manner, respondent No.3 ought to have called upon the appellant-claimant to lead SONIKA 2026.07.28 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-762-2000 (O&M) --3-- evidence in support of the averments made in his application. However, no such procedure was ever adopted by respondent No.3. In such circumstances, respondent No.3 could not have declined either the application for condonation of delay or the application for restoration of the claim petition after having denied the appellant an opportunity to lead evidence in support of the contents thereof. 6.1 Moreover, a perusal of record shows that in the application dated 17.12.1998 filed on behalf of the appellant-claimant, specific reason for the delay was expressed, which was responded to in terms of reply dated 10.06.1999 filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in an absolute evasive manner with no specific denial of the contents and therefore, the cause expressed in the application needed to be accepted been uncontroverted. Be that as it may, respondent No.3 failed to appreciate the real intent and object of the 1923 Act, which, being a piece of social security and welfare legislation, provides a remedy to a workman or his dependants to seek compensation from the employer in case of injury or death, as the case may be. 6.2 A perusal of record further shows that in support of his claim petition, the appellant even appeared as AW-1 and also produced other material evidence in the form of FIR as well as medical reports. Therefore, once such material evidence was available on the record in support of the claim petition, instead of adopting a hypertechnical approach by ordering the claim petition to be dismissed in default vide order dated 20.02.1998, respondent No.3 ought to have decided the claim petition on merits while appreciating the material available on the file or else, keeping in mind the very purpose of the enactment, respondent No.3 faced with the non- appearance of the appellant-claimant, ought to have adjourned the matter SONIKA 2026.07.28 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document FAO-762-2000 (O&M) --4-- followed by issuance of notice to the claimant or his counsel as the primary object of providing a remedy to the injured/dependents under the 1923 Act, being to ensure that the injured workman or the dependants are awarded just and appropriate compensation by adjudicating upon the claim petition in an effective, fair and conclusive manner. The main object of the adjudicatory mechanism provided under the 1923 Act is to determine the substantive rights of the parties and not merely to decide the claim petition on technical grounds. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 17.06.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Bhiwani, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim petition is ordered to be restored to its original number and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The parties, through their respective counsel, shall appear before the Commissioner on 06.08.2026. The Commissioner shall thereafter make an endeavour to decide the claim petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 22.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/ No SONIKA 2026.07.28 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document