Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3763 (HP)

Pushpa Devi v. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited

2025-09-02

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that present Petition may very kindly be allowed and the impugned orders dated 09.06.2016 and 13.07.2018 passed by Ld. Employees Compensation Commissioner Rampur are liable to be quashed and set aside with a further direction to the Ld. Employees Compensation Commissioner Rampur to restore the application of the petitioners and pass an order on the merits of the case, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners herein filed an application under Sections 10 and 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, for determination of the payment of compensation on account of death of their predecessor-in-interest late Shri Sanjiv Kumar. Record demonstrates that the proceedings were dismissed in default in terms of order dated 09.06.2016, which reads as under:- “This case has been called several times since morning. It is 3:40 pm. None is appearing for petitioners. Entire cause list has been exhausted. So the petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed in default. Be consigned to record room.” 3. Thereafter, an application was filed by the claimants under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside order dated 09.06.2016, in terms whereof, the claim petition was dismissed in default. In the proceedings, on 11.05.2017, learned Commissioner passed the following order:- “Respondent no. 2 is reported to be duly served Case called thrice. However, none is appearing for respondent no. 2. So, respondent no. 2 is proceeded against exparte. Reply not filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 despite exceptional last opportunity. Cost in view of order dated 15.03.2017 has also not been paid on behalf of respondent no. 1. At this stage, Id. Counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted at bar that respondent no. 1 does not intend to file any reply. Main case file be requisited from record room for 08.08.2017. Put up for consideration with main case file on said date.” 4. Thereafter, the case was listed on 08.08.2017 and on the said date, the following order was passed:- “File received from Record Room. Put up for consideration on 19.08.2017.” 5. 1 does not intend to file any reply. Main case file be requisited from record room for 08.08.2017. Put up for consideration with main case file on said date.” 4. Thereafter, the case was listed on 08.08.2017 and on the said date, the following order was passed:- “File received from Record Room. Put up for consideration on 19.08.2017.” 5. Thereafter, the case was listed on 13.07.2018, on which date, the following order was passed and the application was dismissed as withdrawn:- “Authorized representative of the petitioners vide his separate statement placed on record stated to withdraw the present petition. Heard. Keeping in view statement made by authorized representative for petitioner, present petitioner is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. Case file after its due completion be consigned to record room.” 6. The petitioner has assailed said order by way of present proceedings alongwith order dated 09.06.2016. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law in light of the fact that as the claimants were the legal heirs of the deceased and they were entitled to compensation in terms of the provisions the Employees Compensation Act, learned Commissioner should have had decided the case on merit and ensured that whatever was due to the petitioners was given to them. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that in the present case, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn and because the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the asking of the petitioners, therefore, filing of this petition is nothing but abuse of the process of law and as there is no perversity in the orders under challenge, the petition be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the documents appended with the petition, including the orders under challenge. 10. On 13.07.2018, learned Commissioner ordered the dismissal of the case as withdrawn on the basis of the statement of the Authorized Representative of the petitioners. Now, incidentally, if one peruses the grounds of this petition, in para-7 thereof, it is averred that the case was withdrawn on the asking of the Presiding Officer. This Court fails to understand as to what would have been the interest of the Presiding Officer in calling upon the petitioners to withdraw the petition. Now, incidentally, if one peruses the grounds of this petition, in para-7 thereof, it is averred that the case was withdrawn on the asking of the Presiding Officer. This Court fails to understand as to what would have been the interest of the Presiding Officer in calling upon the petitioners to withdraw the petition. Had there been any allegation against the Authorised Representative representing the claimants that he was not authorized to withdraw the case, yet he withdrew the same, the same was understandable but herein leveling a direct allegation against the Judicial Officer that he forced the Authorized Representative of the petitioners to withdraw the petition is not acceptable. Whether or not, a party intends to pursue its case is the prerogative of the party concerned and it is not for the Court to advise them or guide them whether to withdraw the proceeding or not to withdraw the proceeding. If a party chooses to withdraw a proceeding, then the Court has to respect the decision of the party and pass appropriate orders. In this case, this is exactly what has happened. On 13.07.2018, it was the Authorized Representative of the petitioners, who vide separate statement placed on record, stated the intent of the petitioners to withdraw the petition. It was in view of the statement of the Authorised Representative of the petitioners that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In fact, in these circumstances as there is no perversity in the order dated 13.07.2018, petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against said order is not even maintainable and filing of this petition, in fact, in such circumstances is nothing but abuse of the process of law. 11. Therefore, as obviously, there is no perversity in the orders passed by the learned Commissioner dated 13.07.2018, in terms whereof the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the asking of the Authorised Representative of the petitioners, this petition is dismissed. Though the Court was inclined to impose cost upon the petitioners for abusing the process of law, however, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners appear to be ill advised, the Court is refraining from doing so. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.