- (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order Anx.5 dt. 21/12/2009 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur awarding compensation to the respondents-claimants and so also the order Anx. 7 dt. 05/04/2010 passed in pursuance thereof directing the petitioners to deposit the amount of compensation as determined by the Commissioner under its order impugned. The respondents No. 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of the deceased Ghanshyam Sharma who indisputably was in the employment of the petitioners working as Watchman and while on duty met with an accident and died on 31/05/2007. The legal heirs of the deceased filed application for compensation before the Employees Compensation Commissioner and after the evidence came on record it remained undisputed that the deceased Ghanshyam Sharma was working as Watchman and died while on duty on account of having met with an accident and at the relevant time he was 37 years of age. Taking note of his wages and age, the learned Commissioner finally awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,280/- as compensation. However, it has been observed that the petitioners herein will be free to recover the amount of compensation from the insurance company which has been also impleaded as respondent i.e. M/s Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Limited.
(2.) It will be relevant to observe that the notice was served upon the petitioners and they filed written statement as well but for one reason or the other they failed to participate in the proceedings before the learned Commissioner. However, at the same time, counsel for the respondent No.8- M/s Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Limited throughout participated and contested the application filed by the respondents-claimants. After passing of the award dt. 21/12/2009, the petitioners did not choose to file appeal as provided under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act. However, at the same time filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for recalling the ex-parte award passed against them. The learned Commissioner, taking note of the material on record, rejected the application vide order dated 01/06/2010 as not maintainable holding that it was the duty of the petitioners to participate in the main proceedings but they deliberately did not participated.
(3.) The remedy of filing statutory appeal under Section 30 of the Act is indisputably available to the petitioner which for the reasons best known to the petitioners has not been availed by them and so far as the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is concerned, the same has been rejected by the learned Authority and this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned Commissioner in rejecting the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.;