Kani vs The District Collector, The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen Compensation) and Nazerath Town Panchayat

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner''s husband died in an accident while was in the course of employment and therefore, the petitioner filed W.C. No. 72 of 2003, on the file of the 2nd respondent claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent passed an award for Rs. 2,67,252/- on 28.01.2005 and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner and her mother-in-law. Unfortunately, the 3rd respondent did not obey the order of the 2nd respondent and therefore, the petitioner filed a petition before the 2nd respondent u/s 31 of Workmen Compensation Act to take proceedings against the 3rd respondent under Revenue Recovery Act and the 2nd respondent, by his letter, dated 18.12.2006 addressed to the first respondent requesting the first respondent to collect the award amount by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Nevertheless, no action was taken by the first respondent and hence, this writ petition is filed for directing the first respondent to initiate recovery proceedings against the 3rd respondent and to recover the award amount passed in W.C. No. 72 of 2003, on the file of the 2nd respondent, dated 28.10.2005.

It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, it is the duty of the 2nd respondent to collect the award amount by invoking the Revenue Recovery Act and the 2nd respondent has also written letter to the first respondent even on 18.12.2006 and the first respondent has not taken any action and therefore, the first respondent must be directed to take action and recover the award amount to be deposited before the 2nd respondent

Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that he was informed that against the award passed in W.C.72 of 2003, C.M.A is filed with a delay and therefore, in such circumstances, if distraint proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act, is taken that would cause irreparable loss to the 3rd respondent.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in the judgment reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 470 in the case of M. Tharmaraj v. District Collector, Tuticorin and Ors. directed the District Collector to take action and recover the award amount.

I have considered the rival submissions of both parties.

In this case, admittedly, the award was passed against the 3rd respondent and there is no representation for the 3rd respondent though the name of the 3rd respondent printed in the cause list. Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, the learned Government Advocate representing the first respondent submitted that under the Act, the first respondent is bound to initiate recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for collection of the award amount. The first respondent is not concerned with the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent. Further, even though an appeal is filed without depositing the award amount, the appeal cannot be entertained. Therefore, even in the event of filing an appeal, it is easy for the first respondent to secure the amount by making necessary application before the Appellate Court. Further, similar contentions were raised before the learned Judge, who decided the case reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 742 in the case of Syndicate Bank, rep. by its Manager, Ootacamund v. K. Prakash and Anr. and that was answered by the learned Judge in para 5 of the said judgment, which is as follows:

I am unable to agree with the said submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner. The submissions made by the writ petitioner is to avoid the statutory payment, which he is liable to pay due to the death of late. Sethu Aasari. He is unnecessarily harassing the respondents herein for the last eight years. Learned Counsel is unable to state whether any appeal has been preferred against the original order of the Additional Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner Act. Though he admitted that an appeal was filed, but he is unable to give any appeal number. Even he states that the appeal is in the S.R. stage only, which means the prerequisite of deposit of the claim amount would not have been made. The appeal unless the said condition is fulfilled, will never be entertained. That statement made by the counsel is sufficient to hold that the said appeal has been abandoned by the petitioner.

As the 1st respondent is bound to initiate revenue recovery proceedings whenever request is made by the 2nd respondent, he is obliged to take proceedings and he cannot say that employer has filed appeal and hence, the proceedings cannot be initiated.

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to initiate proceedings and recover the award amount with interest under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and deposit the amount with interest before the 2nd respondent. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.