Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner-defendant Workmen Compensation Commissioner is aggrieved against the order dated 19-2-97 by which the trial Court while deciding issue No. 3 held that the suit filed by the plaintiff in civil Court is maintainable and is not barred under Section 19 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Kothari Foundation (Charitable Trust), Calcutta impleading trustees as plaintiffs filed suit against the State of Rajasthan, Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur and Tehsildar, Nathdawara alleging that plaintiffs 'Dharmashala' was let out to one Banshilal S/o Jugraj, who was running his own canteen by appointing certain employees, He appointed one Nanalal S/o Tarachand as his employee, who met with an accident while in service on 22-1-82. Nanalal submitted a claim petition before the defendant-petitioner Workmen Compensation Commissioner in which notice was issued to one Jugraj Lookar and proceedings were taken against only that person. No Notice was served upon the plaintiff by the defendant No. 2- petitioner Workmen Compensation Commissioner of the proceedings which were pending before the petitioner-defendant No. 2. In that Claim case Workmen Compensation Commissioner passed the award of Rs. 10201/- in favour of the claimant, but according to plaintiffs, was against only Bhanshilal Lookar. However, the said amount was recovered by threat of the sale of the property of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs under protest deposited the said amount on 25-1-90. In these circumstances, after service of notice under Section 80 CPC, the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 10201/- against the defendants as mentioned above.
(3.) The plaintiffs submitted various documents including the copy of the award dated 23-2-83 passed by the petitioner-defendant No. 2 Workmen Compensation Commissioner in the claim of Nanalal. The trial Court framed the issues and one of the issues was whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable in civil Court alongwith other issues. On the request of both the parties, the trial Court proceeded to decide issue Nos. 3 and 4 as preliminary issues. For issue No. 4 the trial Court observed that question of necessary party cannot be decided without evidence, therefore, held that this issue will be decided alongwith other issues. The trial Court while deciding issue No. 3 held that since plaintiff Kothari Athithishala, Nathdawara (Kothari Foundation Charitable Trust) was not impleaded as party in the proceedings before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, therefore, the matter is not covered by Section 19(2) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.;