In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Prasad, dismissed a writ petition filed by Sanjay Karpri @ Sanjay Kumar Kapri, challenging the compensation order issued by the Labour Court, Deoghar. The High Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner failed to follow the statutory appeal procedure outlined under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.
The Labour Court had ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹3,36,000 as compensation to the family of the deceased worker, Kumod Rout, who died in a work-related accident in 2010. The High Court emphasized that the petitioner had an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal, which should have been pursued instead of filing a writ petition.
Background of the Case
The case relates to a workplace accident that occurred on October 21, 2010, in which Kumod Rout, a 20-year-old worker, was employed to load stones onto a tractor belonging to the petitioner, Sanjay Karpri, at Amaya Pahari, Dumka District. During the course of the work, stones fell on the worker, causing fatal injuries. He died on the spot.
Following the incident, an FIR was lodged under Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 224 of 2010. The petitioner was charged under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other provisions under the Mines and Explosives Act. Kumod’s father, Gomdi Rout, the respondent in this case, filed a compensation claim under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, in W.C. Case No. 28 of 2011 before the Labour Court, Deoghar.
On June 22, 2017, the Labour Court ordered the petitioner to pay ₹3,36,000 as compensation to the deceased’s family.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition:
The key legal issue in this case was whether a writ petition could be filed against the Labour Court’s order, or if the petitioner was bound to file an appeal under the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act. Section 30(1)(a) of the Act provides for an appellate remedy, which the petitioner failed to pursue.
2. Employer’s Liability:
The petitioner argued that he was wrongfully held responsible for the accident, claiming that he had been acquitted in a criminal case related to the same incident. The Labour Court, however, had concluded that the petitioner was the employer of the deceased, based on the evidence presented.
3. Pre-Deposit Requirement for Appeal:
Another important issue raised was the requirement under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, which mandates that an appeal must be accompanied by a deposit of the compensation amount. The petitioner sought to bypass this requirement by filing a writ petition instead of appealing.
Arguments by the Parties
– For the Petitioner:
Advocate Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, representing the petitioner, argued that the Labour Court’s judgment was flawed. He contended that the court had erroneously found the petitioner to be the owner of the tractor and the employer of the deceased. The petitioner maintained that he was acquitted in the related criminal case on January 12, 2018, and was not charge-sheeted for the accident. Therefore, the Labour Court’s judgment directing him to pay compensation was unsustainable in law.
– For the Respondent:
Counsel Mr. Rishav Kumar, representing the respondent (father of the deceased), argued that the writ petition was not maintainable under the law. He pointed out that the Employee’s Compensation Act clearly provides an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30(1)(a), which the petitioner had failed to follow. Kumar further emphasized that the petitioner was attempting to avoid paying compensation by filing the writ petition instead of an appeal, as required by law.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
Justice Sanjay Prasad, after reviewing the submissions and records, held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The court observed that the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, offers a specific remedy through appeal, which the petitioner had ignored. Under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act, an employer can appeal against an order for compensation, but the appeal must be accompanied by a deposit of the compensation amount.
Quoting the relevant legal provisions, Justice Prasad noted, “The petitioner had the statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30(1)(a). Instead of following the proper legal procedure, the petitioner has attempted to bypass the process by filing this writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable.”
The court further cited rulings from the Patna High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which affirmed that writ petitions should not be entertained when statutory appeal mechanisms are available. In particular, the court referred to Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anita Devi and Others (2019 SCC OnLine Pat 564), where the Patna High Court held that appeals must be pursued before writ petitions can be considered.
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to follow the statutory process of appeal. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, provided that the compensation amount was deposited as required by law.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Sanjay Karpri @ Sanjay Kumar Kapri vs. The State of Jharkhand and Gomdi Rout
– Case Number: W.P. (L). No. 5587 of 2017
– Bench: Justice Sanjay Prasad
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Abhishek Sharan
– Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. Rishav Kumar
