1979 (3) TMI 211 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Restoration of Claim Case No. 5704 of 1966.
2. Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.
3. Determination of whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is a "Court" under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Restoration of Claim Case No. 5704 of 1966:
The workman filed an application for restoration of Claim Case No. 5704 of 1966, which was dismissed for default on August 17, 1972, due to his absence. The application for restoration was filed on May 12, 1975, citing sudden illness as the reason for non-attendance. The company contested the application. The Commissioner relied on the decision in Harbhajan Singh v. Bishu Roy, which held that there was no specific provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for setting aside an ex parte order, and thus, Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, providing a three-year limitation, would apply. The Commissioner concluded that the application was not barred by limitation and restored the claim case.

2. Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation:
The primary point of controversy was whether the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The court referred to the Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma case, which held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil Court. The court examined whether the Commissioner is a civil Court, as the Limitation Act would apply only if the Commissioner was a civil Court.

3. Determination of whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is a "Court" under the Limitation Act, 1963:
The court reviewed multiple authorities and judicial decisions to determine the requisites that make a tribunal or authority a Court. It cited several cases, including Allen Bros. & Co. v. Bando & Co., Salamat v. Agent, East Indian Railway, and Mt. Dirji v. Smt. Goalin, among others, to establish the criteria for a judicial tribunal. The court noted that the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation has been conferred with powers of a civil Court, such as taking evidence on oath, enforcing attendance of witnesses, and compelling production of documents. The court concluded that the Commissioner is a Court because he exercises judicial power by virtue of a statute, follows established procedures, and his decisions are binding and enforceable.

Conclusion:
The court held that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is a Court under the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings before the Commissioner. The application for restoration of the claim case, filed long after two years, was prima facie barred by limitation. However, the court provided the workman an opportunity to explain the delay in making the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. The impugned order was set aside, and the records were sent back to the learned Commissioner to allow the workman to explain the delay through a supplementary affidavit. If the workman fails to take steps within the granted time, his application for restoration will be dismissed.