Neelam Kumari & Ors. v. M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’), the appellants/claimants have assailed the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, District North-West, Vishwakarma Nagar, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi.

2. The appellants had initially filed a claim application under Section 22 of the Act before the learned Commissioner, District North-West, 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi on 11.11.2016. In the claim application, it was claimed that Sh. Harbans Lal (the deceased) was employed as a driver on vehicle bearing No. HR-55V-2562 at a salary of Rs.9,000/- per month plus Rs.200/per day as food allowance. The said vehicle was stated to be owned by respondent No. 2/respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 1 (respondent No. 2 therein). It was averred that on 24.04.2016, when Sh. Harbans Lal was driving the vehicle from Delhi to Bangalore and had reached within the jurisdiction of Police Station Managuli, Bijapur, Karnataka, he had acute pain as there was lot of stress and strain in the long and tiresome driving. It was claimed that since Sh. Harbans Lal was feeling uneasy and having difficulty in breathing, he parked the truck at a nearby dhaba. While lying down on a cot, he passed away. It was further claimed that the deceased was under stress and strain of heavy work load and passed away during the course of employment. The post-mortem of the body was conducted at District Hospital, Bijapur.

3. It is averred in the instant appeal that in the proceedings before the Commissioner, the appellant filed an application seeking to withdraw the claim application. It was stated in the application that ‘due to technical reason the applicant intends to withdraw the instant claim petition with the liberty to file a fresh one’. The claim application was permitted to be withdrawn by the learned Commissioner on 17.02.2017.

4. Later, the appellants filed a second claim application under Section 22 of the Act before the learned Commissioner, District North-West, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi on 22.02.2017, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order on the ground that principles of res judicata apply in the present case and the only course of action left with the appellants was to file an appeal against the order dated 17.02.2017. It was further observed that the factum of earlier dismissal of the claim petition was not mentioned properly in the second claim petition and amounts to concealment of material facts.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal, as the same deprives the appellants of their statutory right to seek compensation. It is submitted that vide the impugned order, learned Commissioner erred in concluding that the second claim application filed on behalf of the appellants was barred by principles of res judicata.

6. As noted above, this Court is constrained to note that though the appellants first claim application was permitted to be withdrawn albeit without granting liberty although the same was prayed for. The second claim application came to be dismissed on the ground by applying the principles of res judicata. A perusal of the impugned order would show that though the learned Commissioner noted the facts of the case, however the claim application was not considered on merits but was rather dismissed on the aforesaid sole ground by a non-speaking order.

7. Time and again, the Supreme Court has taken the view that reasons form the heart and soul of every order/pronouncement, and as such, the importance of citing reasons in an order cannot be gainsaid. To elucidate, in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others reported as (2010) 3 SCC 732, it was opined as follows:-

8 Besides, labour statutes, such as the Act, constitute ‘beneficial legislation’, enacted for the welfare of employees/workmen [Refer: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Puran Lal and Others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3483]. In this regard, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shri. Krishan v. Jasoda Devi and Ors. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11137 has opined thus:- “43.1. The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a piece of social beneficial legislation and its provisions have to be interpreted in a manner so as not to deprive the employees of the benefit of the legislation.

43.2. The object for enacting the Employees' Compensation Act even as early as 1923 was to ameliorate the hardship of economically poor employees who were exposed to risks in work, or occupational hazards by providing a cheaper and quicker machinery for compensating them with pecuniary benefits.”

9. Notably, facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Upender Tiwari v. M/s National Insurance Co Ltd. & Anr., FAO 345/2018, wherein while setting aside the impugned order and reviving the compensation application, it was held as under:- "…It is noted that in the proceedings arising out of the case of Abdhesh Sharma (supra), an explanation had been called for as to why a cryptic and non-speaking order had been passed, it not indicating as to what was the “liberty” that had been sought or as to why it had been not granted. A counsel had appeared before this court in the case of Abdhesh Sharma (supra) on behalf of the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation and, on her request the said matter was remitted for fresh order to be passed, it having been assured on behalf of the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation that the fresh order would indicate the reasons and not be a non-speaking order."

10. Lately, this Court in Guljari Harijan and Ors. v. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported as MANU/DE/4251/2022 in alike facts and circumstances while setting aside the impugned order therein, revived the second claim application and directed the same to be decided in accordance with law.