Kamla Devi v. Jeet Singh & Anr

1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC read with Section 4A and 25A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 on behalf of the appellant seeking early hearing of the appeal. 2022:DHC:1458

2. Mr. Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, and Ms. Archana Gaur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, accept notice and fairly do not oppose the prayer made in the application.

3. In view of the averments made in the application and the noobjection given by the learned counsels for the respondents, the application is allowed and the date of hearing is preponed. Date fixed in the matter stands cancelled.

4. Application is disposed of.

1. With the consent of the parties, the present appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.

2. By way of present appeal, the appellant (mother of the deceased) has assailed the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the learned Employee Compensation Commissioner in Delhi Compensation Application No. WCD/74/NW/2017/1131-32. The appellant also seeks relief of complementary cost against the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order has been passed in a cryptic manner and shows complete nonapplication of mind.

4. It is worthwhile to note that this Court, vide order dated 26.02.2018, had noted that the claim filed by the present appellant for compensation, on account of death of her son due to an accident during the course of his employment, was dismissed without referring to the facts or discussing as to how it was without jurisdiction.

5. The impugned order reads as follows:- "Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Jeet Singh & Ors. 9.11.2017 - For claimant: - Sh. Ravi Prakash Clerk of AR R-1, None R -1, Ms. Neeru Garg Arguments heard. For want of jurisdiction the matter is dismissed. Sd 09.11.2017 WCD/74/NW/17"

6. There is no gainsaying that reasons form the heart and soul of every order/pronouncement. Time and again, the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of citing reasons in an order. 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:- “40. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of justicedelivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. “The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind. " (Vide State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal)

41. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. (Vide Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, SCC p. 527, para 19; Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of U.P., SAIL v. STO, State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi; U.P. SRTC v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Ram Phal v. State of Haryana, Mohd. Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad and State of H.P. v. Sada Ram.)

42. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as to why his application has been rejected.”

7. In the present case, a plain reading of the claim petition filed by the claimants would show that it was averred that the deceased had died on duty, while driving truck bearing registration No. HR-63B-1107 as a paid driver, and as such the death had occurred during the course of employment. The learned Commissioner however, while passing the impugned order, neither adverted to the averments made in the claim petition nor to any submissions made on behalf of the claimants.

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained. With the consent of the parties, the same is set aside. The claim petition is restored at its original number and the matter is remanded back with the direction to decide afresh in accordance with law. The claim petition be listed at first instance before the concerned Employee Compensation Commissioner on 28.04.2022. Considering the fact that the claim pertains to the year 2017, the concerned Authority is requested to decide the claim petition expeditiously.

9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. However, in view of the other directions contained in the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by this Court, Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the GNCTD, seeks some time to take appropriate instructions as well as steps for necessary compliance. For the aforesaid purpose, list the matter on 15.07.2022.