9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not attend the Court nor inform his lawyer on the day fixed for hearing. No explanation, bow-ever, was forthcoming for the delay in making the application. The application was contested by the company. 3. The learned Commissioner relied on the decision in Harbhajan Singh v. Bishu Roy (1963) C L.J. 192, in which it was observed that there was no specific provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and its rules for limitation in respect of applications for setting aside an ex parte order. Even if the Limitation Act, 1908 applied, in absence of specific provision for setting aside ex parte order Article 181, (Article 164 not applicable being confined to decree), providing three years' limitation would be applicable for applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. read with Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924. Rule 41 is as follows: 41. Certain provisions of C.P.C. 1908 to apply-Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these rules the following provisions of the First Sch. to the C.P.C. 1908, namely, those contained in Order V. Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX, Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct as to the liability of any person to pay compensation (including any question as to whether a person injured is or not a workman) or as to the amount of duration or compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent of disablement), the question shall in default of agreement, be settled by a Commissioner. (2) No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by a Commissioner or to enforce any liability incurred under this Act. We have already quoted Rule 41 whereby some provisions of the Code have been made applicable to proceedings before the Commissioners. 6. We shall now examine the authorities cited at the bar by Mr. Das as well as Mr. Banerjee to determine the requisites that make a tribunal or authority a Court as understood in legal parlance. In Allen Bros. Co. v. Bando Co. A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 169. Rankin, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed: In my opinion, the controller, in discharging his duty under Section 15 and the President of the Tribunal in discharging his duties under Section 18 (under Calcutta Rent Act, 1920) act as Courts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction of the Court is enlarged and its decision is subject to all the incidents of such jurisdiction. If however the powers are conferred on him not as a Court, he is mere persona designata and his decision will not be subject to the incidents of such jurisdiction as the Court ordinarily exercises. There is, it was observed, no real antithesis between the expression persona designata and court , in other words even a persona designata may be a court and whether he is a Court or not depends upon his powers and functions which he has to discharge. The court noted the position of the Commissioner as an independent tribunal with functions to judge and decide, proceeding judicially, thus satisfying the main tests of a tribunal being a Court. The provisions conferring the powers of the civil Court under the C.P.C. on the Commissioner in respect of certain matters may have been made ex abundanti cautela or to avoid the necessity of incorporating in the Act large number of provisions of the Code or the framers of the Act wanted to emphasise that the Commissioner shall be regarded as a civil Court, on a consideration of the relevant aspects, the Full Bench decided that the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Fine Knitting Mills Co. Ltd., it was held following the above as also other decisions that the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation was a Court subordinate to the High Court. In Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd. (1962)IILLJ760SC , it was held that the basic and essential condition which makes an authority or a body a tribunal under Article 136 is that it should be constituted by the State and should be invested with the State's inherent judicial power. The Court further observed that Article 136(1) refers to a Tribunal in contradistinction to a Court which in technical sense is a Tribunal constituted by the State as a part of ordinary hierarchy of courts which are invested with State's inherent judicial powers. The opinion of the Supreme Court in regard to the expression court has thus direct reference to Article 136(1) where the expression tribunal is used in contradistinction to Court and the proposition cannot be extended in any opinion beyond the interpretation of the said Article. 13. In the decision of A.C. Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma (1965)ILLJ433SC , the Court was also considering the expression Court in Article 136(1) of the Constitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial powers of the State, both are empowered to give binding decisions, approach of both are also similar. The procedure of Court however is regularly prescribed whereas the procedure of a Tribunal may not be strictly prescribed. While a Court is a tribunal constituted by the State as a part of the ordinary hierarchy of court a tribunal is constituted under a special Act to exercise some special jurisdiction. This decision, however, follows the decisions in A.C. Companies case as also the case of Engineering Mazdoor Sabha cited above. The Supreme Court was considering in those cases the interpretation of the word Tribunal in contradistinction to Court in Article 136(1) when the expression Court was held as confined to be part of the normal hierarchy of civil Courts. Even Section 5 of the C.P.C. recognises revenue courts as courts of special jurisdiction created by State which are outside the ordinary hierarchy of civil Courts having original jurisdiction under the Code to try civil suits and proceedings. We have seen that the civil Courts are barred from trying claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It appears to me that concept of civil Court given in the two decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Civil Procedure as required allowing the other party to submit his case and also ensures as required production and acceptance of evidence of parties in accordance with the laws of procedure. He adjudicates judicially in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice on facts on evidence, applying the law as may be applicable to such facts and giving a ruling on any point of law if necessary. He pronounces judgment finally disposing the matter and such judgment has the authoritative-ness as binding on the parties subject to appeal to the High Court. His judgment is again enforceable by process of law. In the circumstances it appears obvious that the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation in law is a Court. 18. The Limitation Act, 1963 as we have seen, applies to all applications to courts under any Act. So that the provisions of the Limitations Act will govern the proceedings except that where the special law prescribes a different period of limitation Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed in the schedule, and in such case provisions of Sections 4 to 24 inclusive will be applicable. Section 22 of the Compensation Act provides for fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim is to be deemed to be instituted by the aggrieved party. 21. This case, which is to be deemed a suit under the Limitation Act, 1963 was dismissed for default as we have seen. The application for its restoration was to be filed under Article 122 within thirty days from the date of dismissal and in view of the specific provision Article 137 as the residuary article was not applicable to it. The application was filed long after two years, and as such it was prima facie barred by limitation. In Salamat v. Agent, E.I. Rly., it was held that once the workman has explained the reason for not filing an original claim application within the prescribed time, he was not required to explain the further delay if any in making the application beyond the statutory period. In Sitaram v. M.N. Nagrashana (1960)ILLJ29SC , the Supreme Court overruling the above decision held that the party has to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed time and this has always been understood to mean that the explanation has to cover the whole period of delay. The workman in this case has not stated anything to explain the delay in making the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
