High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/28409/2023dismissed

Gram Panchayat Vill Salempur Kohi v. Commissioner Under Employees Compensation Act And ANR

2023-12-18Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-28409-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.12.2023 GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SALEMPUR KOHI THROUGH ITS SARPANCH BEEJO DEVI

...Petitioner

Versus

COMMISSIONER UNDER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, YAMUNA NAGAR, CIRCLE-II AT LABOUR COLONY JAGADHARI AND ANOTHER

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) 1.

Petitioner (Gram Panchayat Village Salempur Kohi) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the Award dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar Circle-II at Labour Colony Jagadhri.

Briefly, respondent No.2, herein (Shyam Lal) filed an application under the Employees Compensation Act, on the plea that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat Village Salempur Kohi had started the work in the month of May 2012 as per the government policy for lifting the mud/soil from the fields of the people, to be filled in the pond near the Government School and for the said work, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat had employed Shyam Lal (respondent No.2) and other labourers and they were paid Rs.186/- per day as remuneration. It was stated by respondent No.2 that on

17.05.2012, one Gaurav Kumar along with other labourers, on the directions of Sarpanch Suresh Kumar, was lifting the mud from the mount hill like fields of Gurnam Singh and by putting it in the tractor trolley were filling the same in the pond and at about 11-12 p.m., the heap of the mud all of a sudden fell on the labourers, as a result of which, the labourers namely, Gaurav Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Rania Ram, Vijay and Sham Lal, who were working there, were pressed under the heap of mud but they were saved by the other labourers working there with great difficulty. It was stated that Gaurav Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Rania Ram and Vijay Kumar died on the spot and respondent No.2 was taken to the Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and as his condition was serious, he was taken to PGIMER, Chandigarh. It was stated that at the time of accident, respondent No.

2 was 26 years old and due to the fault and negligence of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, the accident had occurred and respondent No.2 had suffered injuries; wherein, the backbone of respondent No.2 was fractured, for which, he was treated at PGIMER, Chandigarh and thereafter, at Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. Respondent no.2 claimed that he was not able to walk and is bed-ridden and he has to engage a person to look after him. It was further claimed that he had spent Rs.3 lacs on his medical expenses and has become totally disabled and is unable to do any work.

On the afore-said pleas, the petition (Case No.10/EC/2012) was filed by respondent No.2, herein, which came to be allowed by the Commissioner (respondent No.1) under Employees Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar, Circle-II at Labour Colony, Jagadhri, vide order dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure P-4) by observing as under :- "Therefore very fairly, the accident of the claimant occurred when he was on his job contributing for the said

mud work assigned to him alongwith the other labourers by the respondent as per his directions and he met his ill fate during the course of employment of the said respondent i.e. the Sarpanch of said Gram Panchayat Suresh Kumar.

Accordingly the said respondent stands liable to pay the amount of compensation in respect of the disability sustained by the claimant. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to the amount of claim in respect of 100% disability sustained by him as per Ex. Aw-5/A in view of the discussions as made above in detail all the issues are decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondent.

Keeping in view the disability of the claimant as per Ex. Aw-5/A to be 100% his age also in view there of the said document to be 26 years and the wages of the claimant taken as the wages as per the minimum wages Act during the relevant period Rs.4847.17, and the factor as per schedule I of the relevant Act taken as 215.28 the amount of compensation comes out to Rs.627000/- (Six Lac twenty seven thousand only).

Therefore the respondent is ordered to pay with in a month from the date of this order an amount of Rs.627000/- (Six Lac twenty seven thousand only) along with an interest @ 12% PA after one month of the date of accident i.e. 16-06-2012 to the petitioner till realization. However in the interest of fair justice the respondent stands at liberty to indemnify the amount paid to the claimant from the resent Gram Panchayat Salempur Kohi.

No order as to cost."

The instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner (Gram Panchayat Village Salempur Kohi) against the aforesaid order dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner (respondent No.1)

under Employees Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar, Circle-II at Labour Colony, Jagadhri.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book with his able assistance.

At the outset, it is observed that the afore-said order was passed on 13.09.2017 and the instant writ petition has been filed in December, 2023 i.e. after more than six years. The only explanation given by the petitioner for filing the writ petition after the delay is contained in para No.13 thereof, which reads as under :- 13.

That also the delay in filing the present writ petition is due to that the present Sarpanch got to be elected as Sarpanch of the Village in the year 2022 and it came to notice of the petitioner only when the Gram Panchayat was served the summons of the Execution Petition, hence the delay has taken place in filing the writ petition. That also it is submitted that neither the ADC, Yamuna Nagar nor Block Development and Panchayat were arrayed as a party in the claim petition which could substantiate the claim of the respondent No.2 and in the absence of the same there was no occasion for the respondent No.1 to pass the impugned award."

I have considered the afore-said reasoning for the delay caused in filing the writ petition; however, I am not convinced to the same. No material particulars of the date, on which the petitioner-Gram Panchayat came to know about the impugned order, is forthcoming and neither it is mentioned as to when the summons of the execution petition were received by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat or atleast the present incumbent Sarpanch. Apart from the general and vague averments in para No.13 of the petition,

no other reasoning worth acceptance has been stated in the petition. 8.

In the case of Er. Darshan Singh Bhullar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board" reported as 2011(3) S.LR. 287; a Division Bench of this Court held that the limitation as applicable in a Civil Suit would be applicable to the writ petition also. In the case of "Er. Darshan Singh Bhullar (supra), it was held as under:- "

- x - - x - -x-

#$%

!# $

'( ) *+ ! ,

" !

0 # , !

%( ,

1 # ! 2 " , !

, !# 34 )$56+7 &#

6 )*+

! "

# $", ), +6

! , !

( # !

# .

! /

7 # ! !#

& 8! "

! , .

#7 ,

! !

9 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu", 2014 A.I.R. (S.C.W.) 1142 has observed as under:- "

- x - x - ( 7

! #! . 0 /

! #

! / / # 0 !

, #

, 7 0 7 7 ! !

$ 7 # # 0 #

# # ! !

# # ,

4 #

, #

7 #7 ;

;% 7 /4 # ! :

# 7 ! # # 7#

# !

#! !

! # #!

/ 3

# ! ,

#7 !

7 #

# # ,

! !! #7#,! ,

# . /

6 > 3

# , #

, ,! ,#

% / % / % 9.

I find that the general and vague averments in para No.13 of the petition for seeking condonation of delay of about six years cannot be accepted as "sufficient cause" in view of the

#$%&'()

* December 18, 2023 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No