S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was admitted to a Division, Bench as the Motion Bench doubted the correctness of the Single Bench decision in Shri Baru Ram v. The Labour Officer, 1983 P.L.R. 317.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 was awarded a sum of Rs. 5,643.20 under the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter called the Act) for the injuries received, by him while working on the toka as employee of the Petitioner The Petitioner has challenged the said order through this petition, Admittedly there is a right of appeal against the' impugned order under the Act but the payment of the compensation awarded is a condition precedent for the entertainment of appeal. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying on the following observations in Baru Ram's case (supra) contended that as the deposit of the compensation amount was a condition precedent, the remedy of appeal cannot be said to be an adequate alternative remedy: It has been held in Himmatlal Harildl Mehta's case (supra) Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1954 S.C. 403 that the principle that a Court will not issue a prerogative writ when an adequate alternative remedy was available could not apply where a party has come to the Court with an allegation that his fundamental right had been infringed and sought relief under Article 226. Moreover, the remedy provided by the Act is of annoerous and burdensome character and before the Appellant can avail of it he has to deposit the whole amount of the tax, such a provision can hardly be described as an adequate alternative remedy. The ratio of this authority is applicable to the case under Consideration and the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner can avail of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Act. On none of the two reasons given the rule laid down by the learned Single Judge can be sustained. Even the learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not subscribe to the view that infringement of any fundamental fight would be involved in cases of grant of compensation under the Act. So far as the other reason is concerned the matter stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer Jodhpnr and Anr. v. Shiv Ratarn G. Mohatta : AIR 1966 S.C. 142, where a similar contention was turned down in the following terms: We are of the opinion that the High Court should have declined to entertain the petition. No exceptional circumstances exist in this case to warrant the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. It has hot been the object of Article 226 to convert High Courts into original or appellate assessing authorities whenever an asses -see chose to attack an assessment order on the ground that a sale was made in the course of import and therefore, exempt from tax. It was urged on behalf of the Assessee that they would have had to deposit sales tax, while filing an appeal. Even if this is so, does this mean that in every case in which the Assessee has to deposit sales tax he can bypass the remedies provided by the Sales Tax Act? Surely not. There must be something more in a case to warrant the entertainment of a petition under Article 226, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, something to show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the asses -sees to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the Act. * * * * Consequently, the simple fact that the compensation awarded has to be deposited before an appeal can be entertained, would furnish no ground to entertain the writ petition bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. Moreover, the Workmen's Compensation Act is a welfare legislation meant to provide speedy remedy to the workmen in case of injuries received by them in the course of their employment. The Legislature in its wisdom has laid down that the workman must get the compensation awarded before the matter is allowed to be taken up in appeal by the employer. The entertainment of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would obviously defeat the intent and purpose of the legislation and it would be only in rare and exceptional cases where the order on the face of it shows violation of some statute or inherent lack of jurisdiction that the court would be justified in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution bypassing the statutory remedy. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the decision in Baru Ram's case (supra) was not correctly arrived at and overrule the same.
(3.) AS in the present case no exceptional circumstance has been shown apart from the fact that the compensation awarded has to be deposited before the appeal can be maintained, we find no reason to entertain this petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs and the Petitioner is relegated to the ordinary remedy under the Act.;