Injured Worker’s ₹25.8-Lakh Compensation Case Sent Back After Chhattisgarh HC Finds Named Employer Was Not Served Before Ex-Parte Award

In brief

The question

Whether the Commissioner erred in proceeding ex parte against respondent No. 1 without service of notice.

The court held

The Court answered the substantial question concerning the ex parte proceedings in favour of the appellants in MAC No. 90 of 2025, set aside the impugned award and remitted the claim for fresh adjudication.

It also directed

It left the remaining questions open for consideration on remand.

The parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on 22 December 2026; they may file pleadings and additional documents and lead further evidence.

The deposited amount is not to be recovered from the claimant at this stage, and the Commissioner was asked to endeavour to decide the claim within six months of the parties’ appearance.

Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The claimant sought compensation under Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, alleging permanent injuries in an employment-related accident on 25 February 2022.

¶ 5–7

The Commissioner proceeded ex parte and awarded ₹25,83,360, assessing the claimant’s monthly wages at ₹20,000.

¶ 5–7

The alleged employer appealed, challenging service, the employer–employee relationship and the wage assessment; the claimant separately appealed the interest award and the absence of a penalty.

¶ 8–10

The High Court found that notice to respondent No. 1 had been returned unserved because its office was closed, although notice had been served on respondent No. 2.

¶ 17–20

02Issues

i.Whether the Commissioner erred in proceeding ex parte against respondent No. 1 without service of notice.

¶ 9, 18–21

ii.Whether an employer–employee relationship was established between the claimant and the alleged employer.

¶ 9

iii.Whether the Commissioner improperly assessed the claimant’s monthly wages at ₹20,000, exceeding the applicable ₹15,000 ceiling.

¶ 9, 12, 19

iv.Whether interest at 6% per annum from the date of application was legally justified.

¶ 10

v.Whether the Commissioner erred in declining to impose a penalty.

¶ 10

03Law Applied

Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 provides the basis for an employee’s claim for compensation, while Section 30 provides for an appeal to the High Court on a substantial question of law.

¶ 3, 5

The Court also considered Central Government Notification No. S.O. 71(E), dated 3 January 2020, which specifies ₹15,000 as the maximum monthly wages to be taken into account for computing compensation.

¶ 12, 14, 19

The judgment states no separate precedent or broader legal test; it treats proceeding ex parte without service on a party as an error warranting interference in this case.

¶ 18–21

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Employee Section 30Section 10

04Reasoning

The record showed that notice to respondent No. 1 was returned unserved, and the claimant’s assertion that respondent No. 2 managed or owned respondent No. 1 was unsupported by documentary evidence.

¶ 18, 20

The Court therefore held that respondent No. 1 had been improperly proceeded against ex parte.

¶ 20–21

It also noted that the award’s use of monthly wages of ₹20,000 appeared inconsistent with the ₹15,000 statutory-notification ceiling, but did not determine the wage, employment relationship, interest or penalty issues because the claim required fresh adjudication.

¶ 19, 21–22

05Holding

¶ 20–22

It left the remaining questions open for consideration on remand.

¶ 20–22

The parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on 22 December 2026; they may file pleadings and additional documents and lead further evidence.

¶ 23–27

The deposited amount is not to be recovered from the claimant at this stage, and the Commissioner was asked to endeavour to decide the claim within six months of the parties’ appearance.

¶ 23–27

Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.

¶ 28

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF