AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 238 wordsG.S. Singhvi, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen''s
Compensation Act, II is admitted fact that order for ex pane proceedings was passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, on
February 13, 1992 and, therefore, final award was passed on November 2, 1993. Application for setting aside the order for ex parte proceedings
as well as the award was filed some time in November, 1993.
Learned Commissioner has held that no sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside order of ex parte proceedings, and, there was no
ground to condone the delay in filing of the application qua the order dated February 13, 1992.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me a typed copy of the application filed before the Commissioner. Workmen''s
Compensation, Karnal. A perusal of that application shows that no case whatsoever has been shown by the petitioner for setting aside of order for
ex parte proceedings. Moreover that application was not even supported by an affidavit disclosing reasons as to why the concerned officer could
not make application within the period of limitation for setting aside of ex parte proceedings
In my considered view the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen''s Compensation Act does not suffer from any
legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. This revision petition is without any substance and is dismissed.