w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ambika Cotton Mills Limited v/s M. Chelliah & Others

    W.P.(MD)No. 10919 of 2010 & M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 & 2 of 2010

    Decided On, 08 September 2010

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU

    For the Petitioner: V.O.S. Kalaiselvam, Advocate. For the Respondent: R2 & R3 - S.C.Herold Singh, Govt. Advocate.



Judgment Text

(PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the third respondent in his order No.O.Mu.(A3)3487/2010 dated 09.07.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to entertain the review petition and dispose the same on merits.)


1. The petitioner is the textile Mills and they suffered an order under the hands of the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation. The petitioner instead of challenging the order dated 08.02.2010, filed a review application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner, refused to review the order and rejected the request by stating that he has no power to review. Instead of challenging the original order as well as the order refusing to review by way of an appeal under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition.


2. The contention of the petitioner was that the employees in the Mill were insured on the liability unreturned by the second respondent Insurance Company and when they are ready and willing to pay the question of mulking the petitioner with liability may not arise. However, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, when there is an effective remedy by way of an appeal to this very same Court is available. This court in number of occasions had considered the scope of the effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal and refused to entertain the writ petition on that ground. Very recently, the Supreme Court in dealing with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, vide its decision in Rajkumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Another reported in (2010 (4) L.W.1) has forewarned the High Courts from entertaining the writ petition. When the High Court itself is the statutory appellate authority under the said enactment, merely because there is a condition of pre-deposit that cannot be a ground for entertaining the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following passage found in para 34 and 35 may be useful to extract:-


"34. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal Statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case High court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go bye by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The High Court, with great respect, fell into a manifest error by not appreciating the aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.


35. No reason could be assigned by the appellant's counsel to demonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Se

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ction 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since High Court itself is the appellate forum. 3. Under these circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R