Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.08.2025
SHRI RAM NIWAS PAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhlak Ali, Advocate.
Through: Ms. Meghna De, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. S. Mirza, Advocate for R-2
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Award dated 27.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner Employee’s Commissioner [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”].
2. At the outset, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that in the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Court, it has been observed that the Petitioner has chosen not to avail the statutory remedy of filing of an Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] but has instead filed the present Writ Petition. 2.[1] Learned Counsel further seeks to rely upon a judgment of the Coordinate Bench in M/s Gulmehar Green Producer Company v. Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act (North-East) Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.[1] wherein the Coordinate Bench while dealing with a similar issue has dismissed a Petition holding that the Petitioner has a limited remedy to challenge such an award by filing an Appeal under Section 30 of the Act.
3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 further submits that this objection has also been taken by the Respondent No.1 in her Counter Affidavit as well.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has been recently engaged in the matter and that the present Petition was filed under the wrongful legal advice given to the Petitioner by his previous Counsel. He further submits that a party must not be made to suffer for the mistake of his Counsel.
5. The challenge in the present Appeal is to an Order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the Authority/Commissioner Employee’s Compensation [hereinafter referred to as “CEC”] directing that the Petitioner is liable to make payment in the sum of Rs. 7,36,680/- on account of employee death compensation as payable to the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased employee. Additional directions were also passed including that penalty under Section 4(A)(3)(b) of the Act be imposed on the Petitioner.
6. The challenge to the Award passed by the CEC under Section 30 of the Act is required to be made by way of an Appeal. Section 30(1)(b) of the 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7735 Act sets out that an Award of lump-sum compensation or disallowing of a claim in full or part shall only be challenged by an Appeal filed before the High Court. The provisions further provides that an Appeal shall not lie unless a substantial question of law is involved and the amount in dispute is not less than Rs. 10,000/-. Section 30 of the Act reads as follows:
6.[1] A reading of the provision shows that an order directing compensation as has been passed by the Court of the Commissioner of the Employees’ Compensation under the EC Act is amenable to filing of an Appeal and not of a Writ Petition. Given that an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioner, a Writ Petition cannot be entertained.
7. It is no longer res integra that where the statute provides for an alternate efficacious remedy, the aggrieved party is required to avail of the statutory remedy. The Supreme Court in the case of Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr.[2] has held that it is well settled that the writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and it should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternate remedy available with the Appellant. It was also observed that adopting an over liberal approach should be avoided and instead settled legal principles should be followed. The relevant extract of Transport & Dock case is below: “14. In our opinion the writ petition filed by the appellants should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and the discretion should not ordinarily be exercised if there is an alternative remedy available to the appellant. In this case there was a clear alternative remedy available to the appellant by raising an industrial dispute and hence we fail to understand why the High Court entertained the writ petition. It seems to us that some High Courts by adopting an over liberal approach are unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles. However, we may also consider the case on merits.”
8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gulmehar Green Producer Company case has in similar circumstances where an order was passed by the CEC, held that the employee had the limited remedy of challenge under Section 30 of the Act and that filing a writ petition was only intended to evade requirement of pre deposit of the awarded amount and should not be permitted. The relevant extract of Gulmehar Green Producer Company case is reproduced below: “10. It is trite when petitioner is having an alternative effective statutory remedy of appeal, the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be entertained. ….
14. The petitioner being employer has a limited remedy to challenge the impugned Award of the CEC under Section 30 of the EC Act, 1923 on question of law. The petitioner in guise of the present writ petition intends to evade the requirement of pre-deposit of the awarded amount under section 30 by not filing the appeal in the High Court against the impugned orders which cannot be permitted.”
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
10. The Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The liberty as sought for is so granted.
11. It is directed that the amount deposited with this Court in terms of the order dated 19.02.2019, shall remain deposited pending the outcome of the challenge by the Petitioner.
12. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the matter on merits. The rights and contentions of both the parties are left open.