[2025:RJ-JP:47875] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9117/2007 Hindustan Copper Ltd. Khetri Copper Complex, Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Revenue Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri District Jhunjhunu 3. Commissioner Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Sikar (Rajasthan). 4. Shri Madu Ram S/o Shri Arjun Ram, Resident of Village Chitosha Tehsil Khetri District Jhunjhunu ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijayant Nirwan For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Singh Naruka, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 26/11/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of notice dated 16.10.2007 issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Khetri District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) under Section 256-257 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,28,093/- in compliance of award earlier passed by the Commissioner Workman Compensation, Sikar Jhunjhunu, District Sikar. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-claimant filed claim petition under Workman Compensation Act, 1923 before the Workman Commissioner which [2025:RJ-JP:47875] (2 of 4) [CW-9117/2007] was allowed. In the said claim petition, the petitioner was impleaded as non-claimant No.2 and non-claimant No.1 was a contractor under which son of the claimant-respondent No.4 was working. It is submitted that while allowing the claim petition vide award dated 21.12.1985, directions were given by the Commissioner, Workman Compensation only to non-applicant No.1 who was the contractor M/s Ratan Singh Thekadar and no directions whatsoever were issued against the present petitioner who was non-claimant No.2 in the claim petition. 3. It is further submitted that the award dated 21.12.1985 was neither challenged by the Contractor M/s Ratan Singh Thekadar nor by the claimant-respondent No.4, thus, the award had attained finality. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter when the award was not complied with, an application for executing the award was filed by the respondent-claimant, which was ultimately sent to the S.D.O. Khetri for recovering the outstanding valid amount as per the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 5. It is submitted that from bare perusal of the award, it becomes abundantly clear that no directions for payment of compensation were ever given to the petitioner, yet overlooking the directions in the award, the S.D.O. Khetri has issued notice of recovery to the petitioner. Such notice was without jurisdiction and contrary to the award. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimant opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner was principal employer of the son of claimant and therefore was vicariously [2025:RJ-JP:47875] (3 of 4) [CW-9117/2007] liable for paying compensation to the claimant and the petitioner cannot shift its responsibility to its contractor. Therefore, no mistake has been committed by the SDO in issuing recovery notice against the petitioner. Respondent-claimant cannot be deprived of the awarded amount by raising hyper-technical pleas. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Award passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner is explicit and unambiguous. Directions given in award dated 21.12.1985 are being reproduced hereunder:- "D;ksafd rudh ua- 1 o 2 QSlyk izkFkhZ ds gd esa gS vr% izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ua- 1 ls :- 18]000/- {kfriwfrZ jde] :i;s 4]320/- 6 izfr'kr dh nj ls C;kt ,oa 200/- :i;s eqdnek [kpZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;g lHkh Hkqxrku vizkFkhZ ua- 1 bl U;k;ky; esa bl QSlys ds fnukad ls 60 fnu ds vUnj tek djsxsaA " 9. Bare reading of the directions would reveal that the award was only against M/s Ratan Singh Thekadar and no directions for making payment of compensation has been issued against the present petitioner, although the petitioner was also a party to the claim petition. 10. There is nothing on record to show that the award was either further challenged or modified so as to fasten any liability upon the petitioner also. 11. Even if the award dated 21.12.1985 is taken to be 'decree' duly executable under civil law, it is a settled proposition of law that the executing authority cannot go beyond the original award. In the instant case, when there were no directions whatsoever in the original award dated 21.12.1985, the executing authority lacked any jurisdiction and competence to enforce any [2025:RJ-JP:47875] (4 of 4) [CW-9117/2007] sort of recovery against the petitioner pursuant to execution of award. 12. In the light of above, the notice dated 16.10.2007 is totally illegal and unjustified and therefore, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. The instant writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /11