BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE/
WORKMEN COMPENSATION, JHILMIL, SHAHDARA,
DELHI
W.C. NO __________ 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
SH. KRITINATH JHA …
CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE STATESMAN LTD. …
RESPONDENT
INDEX
[Link] PARTICULARS PAGES COURT
FEE
Written Statement on behalf of
1. Respondent to the Claim filed by
the Claimant along with
affidavit.
2. Authority Letter
DATE: RESPONDENT/ MANAGEMENT
NEW DELHI
THROUGH
Gagan Mathur
Advocates
Enrolment No. : D/2781/99
259, Lawyers’ Chambers, High Court, New Delhi-03.
Mob.: 09811140377; Email: gagan@[Link]
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE/
WORKMEN COMPENSATION, JHILMIL, SHAHDARA,
DELHI
W.C. NO __________ 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
SH. KRITINATH JHA …
CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE STATESMAN LTD. …
RESPONDENT
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT TO THE CLAIM FILED BY THE
CLAIMANT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS OBJECTIONS:
1. That the present claim petition filed by the Claimant is the
abuse of process of law and as such liable to be dismissed
with exemplary costs.
2. That the claim petition is barred by limitation under Section
10 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and is
liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.
3. That the claim petition has not been properly valued for the
purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and is therefore liable to
be rejected outrightly.
4. That there is absolutely no cause of action in favour of the
Claimant and against the Respondent. The claim is therefore
liable to be rejected on this ground also.
5. That the Claimant has deliberately and mischievously
withheld the material facts and filed the present Claim
Petition before this Hon`ble Court based on a baseless and
concocted tale in an attempt to mislead this Hon`ble Court.
The Claimant herein, is thus guilty of not only Suppressio
Veri but also of Suggestio Falsi. Accordingly, the present
claim petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
6. That the Claimant has no locus-standie for filing the claim
petition as the accident did not occur during the course of his
employment as the Claimant met with an accident. That the
claimant was not on duty at the time when the alleged
accident took place and the said fact is evident from the time
and day of the alleged accident which was the evening time of
Sunday.
7. That the case had been closed by this Hon’ble Court on
16.08.2023 for the reason that the Claimant did not appear
before this Hon’ble Court for three consecutive hearings, and
it was presumed by the court that the Claimant is not
interested in his case.
REPLY PARA-WISE ON MERIT:
1. That the contents and averments of para No.1 of the claim as
alleged are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the
respondent is employing hundreds of employees as alleged or
otherwise.
2. That the contents of para 2 in so far stated that the petitioner
was appointed in the year 2007 by the respondent needs no
reply, however, it is wrong and denied that the petitioner is a
workman as alleged or otherwise. It is pertinent to submit that
the petitioner lastly worked as a Senior Journalist with the
respondent.
3. That the contents of para 3 are wrong and denied. It is wrong
and denied that the petitioner had to travel every day in Delhi
in connection with the office work to collect news from
various sources as alleged or otherwise, on the contrary, The
petitioner, a Senior Journalist, was not obliged to travel and
had a desk job; his tasks included fact-checking, rewriting,
and copy-editing articles, as well as creating
captivating headlines.
4. That the contents of para 4 of the claim in so far are a matter
of record need no reply, however, anything found contrary on
record is wrong and denied.
5. That the contents and averments of para No. 5 of the claim are
wrong, false, fabricated, hence, denied. It is wrong and denied
that on 10.01.2016, the petitioner was performing his duty or
was on duty as alleged. The date, time and day of the
purported accident, which was 10.01.2016 Sunday evening,
made it evident that the claimant was not on duty when the
alleged accident occurred.
6. That the contents of Para 6 of the claim do not relate to the
answering respondent. However, the claimant be put to strict
proof to the averments made in this para.
7. That the contents of Para 7 of the claim do not relate to the
answering respondent. However, the claimant be put to strict
proof to the allegation made in this para.
8. That the contents of Para 8 of the claim do not relate to the
answering respondent. However, the claimant be put to strict
proof to the averments made in this para.
9. That the contents of Para 9 of the claim do not relate to the
answering respondent. However, the claimant be put to strict
proof to the averments made in this para.
[Link] the contents of Para 10 of the claim do not relate to the
answering respondent. However, the claimant be put to strict
proof to the averments made in this para.
[Link] the contents and averments of para No. 11 of the claim
are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the alleged
accident occurred in or during the course of duty of the
claimant as alleged or otherwise. It is wrong and denied that
there is any admission by the Respondent in the manner
alleged. The payment of wages to the claimant is not denied
but the magnanimous manner of payment of wages does not
imply that the alleged accident occurred during the course of
his duty or there is any admission by the Respondent.
[Link] the contents of Para 12 are denied as wrong and
incorrect for the want of knowledge and the claimant be put to
strict proof of the allegations made in this para.
[Link] the contents of Para 13 are denied as wrong and
incorrect for the want of knowledge and the claimant be put to
strict proof of the allegations made in this para.
[Link] the contents and averments of para No. 14 of the claim
are wrong and denied. It is incorrect and denied that
Respondent harassed the claimant after the accident because
he was not performing his tasks efficiently. Further, It is
denied that the claimant was suffering from any disability at
work due to his accident and also claimant accomplished all
his tasks according to the schedule without extending his
working hours.
15. That the contents and averments of para No. 15 of the claim
are wrong and denied. It is incorrect to imply that the claimant
was suffering from any physical disabilities. It is further
submitted that the Employee transfer order was issued in
accordance with the company's policies and procedures, and
all employees are required to abide by them.
[Link] the contents and averments of Para No. 16 of the claim
are wrong and denied. It is incorrect that the claimant was
suffering from any health issues or physical disabilities. It is
submitted that the transfer order was issued in accordance
with the company’s policies and norms and all the employees
are bound to abide by the rules and norms of the company.
[Link] the contents and averments of para No. 17 of the claim
are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the Claimant failed
to comply with the transfer order. It is further submitted that
the Claimant was unwilling to join his office at Ranchi and
abandoned his duties.
[Link] the contents of Para 18 are denied as wrong and
incorrect for the want of knowledge. and the claimant be put
to strict proof of the action of raising any industrial dispute.
[Link] the contents and averments of para No. 19 of the claim
are wrong, false, fabricated, hence, denied. The Claimant’s is
no longer an employee of the Respondent after his wilful
refusal to discharge his duties at the Statesman’s office at
Ranchi. It is further submitted that the claimant abandoned his
duties by not joining the office at the place of transfer.
[Link] the contents and averments of para No. 20 of the claim
are wrong, false, fabricated, hence, denied. It is incorrect and
wrong that the claimant met with an accident during the
course of his employment and the alleged accident took place
on the day of Sunday Evening at 05:45 PM on 10.01.2016
which was a holiday.
[Link] the contents of Para 21 are denied as wrong and
incorrect for the want of knowledge and the claimant be put to
strict proof of the contentions made in this para.
22. That the contents of Para 22 of the claim are denied for want
of knowledge and the Claimant be put to strict proof of the
averments made in the para under reply. It is submitted that
the Claimant is not suffering from any mobility problems or
permanent disability due to his accident on 10.01.2016.
[Link] the contents of Para 23 are denied as wrong and
incorrect for the want of knowledge.
[Link] the contents and averments of para No. 24 of the claim
are denied. The Claimant did not meet with an accident in the
course of employment and therefore Respondent/
Management is not liable to pay compensation under the
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
25. That the contents and averments of Para No. 25 of the claim
are denied for want of knowledge and the Claimant be put to
strict proof of the averments made in the para under reply. It
is denied that the claimant approached the respondent for the
claim of compensation. It is submitted that the Respondent is
not liable to pay compensation under Section 4 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
[Link] the contents and averments of Para No. 26 of the claim
are wrong, hence denied and the Claimant be put to strict
proof of the averments made under this para.
[Link] the contents and averments of para No. 27 of the claim
are wrong and denied. It is incorrect that the claimant met
with an accident during the course of his duty as the accident
occurred on holiday i.e. Sunday evening. It is submitted there
is absolutely no cause of action in favour of the Claimant and
against the Respondent as the accident did not occur in or
during the course of the employment.
28. That this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and
try this claim because the Hon’ble Court is barred under
section 10(1) to take cognizance of the claim as the present
claim is time-barred. Section 10(1) of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 is mentioned below: “(1) No claim
for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner
unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner
hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the
happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before
him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in
case of death within two years from the date of death ”
[Link] the contents of Para 29 are denied as wrong and incorrect
for the want of knowledge. The salary of the claimant is a
matter of record and needs no reply, however, anything found
contrary to the record is wrong and denied. It is further denied
that the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.
25,00,000 /- as the amount of compensation is not in
accordance with section 4 of the Act.
[Link] the contents and averments of para No 30 are denied.
The present claim petition is undervalued and the Claimant
has not affixed the adequate court fees on the claimed amount
of compensation.
REPLY TO PRAYER PARA:
That each & every content & averments of prayer para of the
claim–claim petition is vehemently and specifically wrong and
denied for the reasons and submissions mentioned in preliminary
objections and reply para-wise on merits of this written
Statement.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
a) Dismiss the claim petition of the Claimant.
b) Award costs to the Respondents.
c) Pass any other just and equitable order as deemed fit in the
interest of justice.
DATE: 21.11.2023 RESPONDENT/ MANAGEMENT
NEW DELHI
THROUGH
Gagan Mathur
Advocates
Enrolment No. : D/2781/99
259, Lawyers’ Chambers, High Court, New Delhi-03.
Mob.: 09811140377; Email: gagan@[Link]
VERIFICATION:
Verification at Delhi on the 21st day of November of, 2023 that
the contents of para 1 to 30 of the reply on merits of the written
statement are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
those para 1 to 7 of the preliminary submission and objections of
the written statement are true and correct on the information
received and believed to be true and last para is a prayer to this
Hon`ble Court.
RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE/
WORKMEN COMPENSATION, JHILMIL, SHAHDARA,
DELHI
W.C. NO __________ 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
SH. KRITINATH JHA …
CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE STATESMAN LTD. …
RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Anand Prasad Pandey, aged about 63 years, son of Late
Shri B.D. Pandey, the resident of G-20/40, Sector 7, Rohini, New
Delhi -110085, solemnly declares and affirms as under:
1. That I am the Authorised Representative of the Respondent in
the present case and am fully conversant with the facts of the
case and in a position to depose the same.
2. That I have read the accompanying Reply of the Claim
Petition under section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act 1923, which has been drafted by the counsel on my
instructions.
3. That the facts stated in the said application are true to my
knowledge and may kindly be considered as part of this
Affidavit as the facts stated therein are not being repeated for
the sake of brevity.
Dated: 21.11.2023 DEPONENT
NEW DELHI
VERIFICATION: -
I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that the facts
stated in Paras 1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true to my
knowledge, no part of it is false nor anything has been concealed
therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this 21st day of November 2023.
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE/
WORKMEN COMPENSATION, JHILMIL, SHAHDARA,
DELHI
W.C. NO __________ 2023
IN THE MATTER OF
SH. KRITINATH JHA …
CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE STATESMAN LTD. …
RESPONDENT
LETTER OF AUTHORITY
I/We, Anand Prasad Pandey, son of Late Shri B.D. Pandey, the
resident of G-20/40, Sector 7, Rohini, New Delhi -110085,
Authorised Representative of The Statesman Limted do hereby
authorize Mr. Gagan Mathur, on my behalf and on behalf of the
company to appear , and represent me in the above noted case
and as may be necessary or expedient to give statement or any
submissions on my behalf in relation to my official capacity.
Mr. Gagan Mathur is also authorize to represent the undersigned
in any of the legal cases if so required. We on behalf of my/ our
concern, hereby promise that I / We will be fully legally bound
by the act of above noted authority so far as this Claim Petition is
concerned.
Place: New Delhi
Date: 21/11/2023
Through
Anand Prasad Pandey
Authorised Representative
Statesman Ltd.