TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shell are that an order made by the learned single Judge of this Court in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is a judgment and the Commissioner exercising power under Section 20 of the Act discharges his duties and functions as a Civil Court is expected to discharge its functions and, therefore, he acts as a Court and not as an Arbitrator, It is further contended that adjudication done by the Commissioner under Section 19 of the Act is analogous and similar to that of the Court in view of the following factors/circumstances: The disputes need to be settled by the Commissioner are disputes in regard to liability of employer to pay compensation or as to amount or duration of compensation between him and his workman or his legal representative and Rules, which are framed and procedure contemplated by such Rules require that aggrieved employee needs to file written application before the Commissioner and other side has to file written statement. The Commissioner thereafter is required to frame and record issues on which decision of the case depends and has to record documentary and oral evidence, which may be adduced by the parties to the dispute. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court and his decision is a judgment and not an. award. 4. Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel further submitted that in the case of Smt. Rajiyabi Cosman Sayi and Anr. v. Mackinon Machinazie and Co. Pvt. Ltd., (supra) the Division Bench of this Court basically considered the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Brajanandan Sinha v. Jyoti Naraen, , Virindar Kumar Satyawadi v. State of Punjab, and Thakur Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank, (supra) and in the light considered various provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that Division Bench after due deliberations in this regard, rightly held in para (12) that Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court and his decision is a judgment and that order passed by the High Court in appeal under Section 30 is a judgment within the meaning of Letters Patent. 5. It is submitted that power exercised and function discharged by the Registrar under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act are similar to those of the Commissioner under Section 20 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r contended that though there is an appeal to the High Court provided against certain orders of the Commissioner under Section 30 of the Act, that by itself does not take away efficacy of Sections 3(5) and 19(2), of the Act and the Commissioner, therefore, cannot be termed as a Court. 9. It is further contended by Shri Gilda that in the case of Yeshwantrao v. Sampat, , the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not a Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and an order passed by him under Section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not revisable by the High Court. The learned Counsel contended that this is a direct judgment on the issue in question wherein the Full Bench has considered the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr., (supra) in the light of ratio laid down by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma, and Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and Anr. v. Hind Cycles Ltd., . It is further contended that the Full Bench of Madhya Prade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act could not be pursuant to Section 108 of the Act of 1915 as envisaged under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and further held that the Letters Patent Appeal against such decision would not lie. 12. We have given our anxious thought to the various contentions raised by the respective learned Counsel as well as ratio laid down by the various judicial pronouncements in the judgments cited hereinabove. The following legal position emerges: A judicial decision pre-supposes an: existing dispute between two or more parties and presentation of the case by the parties to the dispute, if dispute between them is a question of fact, ascertainment of fact by means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute. If the dispute between them is a question of law, submission of legal arguments by parties and decision, which disposes of the whole matter by finding upon facts in dispute including disputed question of law. All these are the functions of the Court and Authority created under special statute for settlement of dispute as per provisions of the Workmen's Compensation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly because of hierarchy of the Courts provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. Strict compliance of the procedure contemplated by the Code is required to be followed by the Court. The order or decision whether final or interlocutory of the Court is always subject to revision or appeal and, therefore, settlement of dispute in the regular Civil Court takes unreasonably long time. The workman though is entitled to institute his claim for damages in respect of injuries against employer or other person in the Civil Court by filing suit, settlement of his claim undoubtedly would take number of years and process is also expensive. The Legislature, therefore, in its wisdom thought it fit to provide a separate, speedy and cheap forum to the workman or his dependents for settlement of compensation and, therefore, created a special legislation, i.e. Workmen's Compensation Act. The intention of the Legislature in providing such alternate forum is undoubtedly with a specific purpose to avoid the lengthy procedure of the Civil Courts and to exclude them from normal hierarchy of the Civil Courts in order to provide speedy, cheap and effective alternate remedy and to give finality to the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Arbitrator. The word Commissioner in the English statute is Arbitrator . In view of the above referred facts and circumstances, it is undoubtedly clear that appointment of the Commissioner under Section 20 of the Act is with a view to provide a separate and distinct forum other than the Civil Court for the purpose enumerated in Section 19 of the Act and at the same time, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon and determine liability in tort is not barred. The Legislature, therefore, has created this alternate forum for a specific purpose and in order to achieve definite objective totally separate from the regular Civil Court. Merely because certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the procedure required to be followed by the Commissioner and thereby clothe him with the trapping of a Court, it does not bring the functions discharged by the Commissioner within the ambit of Court and decision rendered by him cannot be a judgment as envisaged in the Letters Patent. 18. Similarly Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act puts a bar on making two separate claims by the workmen, such as one before the Commissioner under the Act and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quite similar in regard to exercising judicial powers of the State. Their decisions are binding in nature. The procedure is almost similar except in case of special fora, the same need not be strictly followed as in the case of Courts. The approach also needs to be adopted by both is also more or less the same. The distinguishing feature between Court and Tribunal or special forum is that a Court is constituted by the State as a part of the normal hierarchy of Courts of Civil Judicature maintained by the State under its Constitution exercising judicial powers of the State and perform all the judicial functions of the State except those, which are excluded by law from their jurisdiction, whereas Tribunal is constituted under the special Act to exercise special jurisdiction in order to decide controversy arising under certain special laws and, therefore, by its very composition and formation, is distinct and separate and cannot be treated as Court by necessary implication. 20. It will be appropriate to consider at this stage judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Rajiyabi Cosman Sayi and Anr. v. Mackinon Machinzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd., (supra) wherein Division Bench has held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) the question which arose for decision of the Apex Court was whether an Arbitrator appointed under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be said to be a Tribunal under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. The Apex Court answered the question in negative and observed that apart from the importance of the trappings of the Court, 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. It has been further observed that sometimes a rough and ready test is applied in determining the status of an adjudicating Body by enquiring whether the said body or authority is clothed with the trappings of the Court. In that connection, it was added that presence of said trappings does not necessarily make the Tribunal a Court. 23. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Engineering Mazdoor Sabha's case is considered by the Apex Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma and Anr. (supra) and in para 33, it is observed thus: ......... But as we have already stated, the consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act is a special legislation and the Commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Act discharges powers and functions as Tribunal and is not a Civil Court. As we have already stated hereinabove, provisions of Section 19(2) contemplate that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question, which by or under the Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Commissioner or to enforce any liability incurred under this Act. The Commissioner appointed is an Authority, which is separate and distinct from the Civil Court, which is further evident in view of provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which excludes jurisdiction of the Commissioner in the event of suit instituted in a Civil Court by the employee for damages in tort. Necessary inference in the situation is that the Commissioner is empowered to exercise powers conferred on him under Section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, acts as a Tribunal and is not a Court. 27. For the purposes of controversy in question, the observations of the Apex Court in Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sunder, are of great assistance. The Apex Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Court of Justice and is a part of the hierarchy of the Civil Courts. 29. We find it necessary to reiterate that if the intention of the Legislature was not to create distinct forum other than Civil Court for settlement of claims of compensation, there would be no necessity to enact Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and ordinary Civil Courts, even otherwise, would have been competent to decide the claims of the employee against the employer regarding the compensation. Similarly, it is not conceivable that provision of Section 20 of the Act was enacted even though it was not strictly necessary but for the sake of abundant caution or clarification of the position. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Commissioner appointed under the Act does not constitute a Court which can be said to be part of the ordinary hierarchy of the Courts Civil Judicature maintained by the State under its Constitution to exercise judicial powers of the State. 30. The other point for consideration is, since Section 30 of the Act provides appeal to the High Court against the decision/order passed by the Commissioner, whether the Commissioner is a Court subordina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure puts an embargo on any further appeal under Letters Patent against an appellate judgment rendered by the single Judge of the High Court. The object is to minimise delay and give finality to the adjudication. Section 100-A is inserted, by the Amending Act of 1976 and after enforcement of Section 100-A, no appeal would be available from the judgment, decree or order of single Judge in second appeal. Though the decision given by the single Judge of the High Court in appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, in the circumstances of the case, is not a judgment as envisaged in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Bombay), however, even if we presume it to be so, even then the decision given by the single Judge under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act will have same effect as that of the decision rendered by the single Judge in second appeal and in view of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent Appeal against such decision of the single Judge will not be maintainable. The view expressed by us is also consistent with the aims and objects of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 34. The decision giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of award in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The decision given by the single Judge, in our opinion, in the circumstances and for the reasons stated hereinabove, cannot be construed to be a judgment as envisaged in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Bombay) and, therefore, Letters Patent Appeal, in our opinion, is not maintainable. The view expressed by us that the Commissioner does not act as a Court subordinate to High Court is also fortified by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Baahir Khan v. Ranger, . 36. The Apex Court, in Thakur Jugalkishore Sinha 's case (supra) though held that Assistant Registrar functioning under Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act is a Court subordinate to High Court for the purpose of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has considered the expression 'Court' in the light of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and not from the point of view of word 'subordinate Court' used in Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, held that, in our view, the sub-ordination for the purpose of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act means a judicial sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
