The applicants in W.C.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Suryapet, Nalgonda District are the petitioners in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, dismissing I.A.2/2012, is under challenge in the present revision.

2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent apart from perusing the material available on record.

3. Despite service of notice by substitute service by way of paper publication, none appears for the first respondent. Petitioners herein filed W.C.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Suryapet, Nalgonda District, seeking compensation of Rs.4,45,420/- with interest @ 24% per annum following the death of their son on 24.04.2010 in a road accident. In the said W.C.No.28 of 2011 petitioners filed the present I.A.No.2 of 2012, seeking permission of the Commissioner to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs.4,45,420/- to Rs.6,69,110/- in addition to Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Resisting the said application, the second respondent Insurance Company filed a counter stating that the said application is not maintainable and the amendment published on 31.05.2010 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners herein as the incident took place on 24.04.2010. The learned Commissioner by way of an order dated 19.08.2013 rejected the said request made by the petitioners herein for amendment.

4. Calling in question, the validity and legal acceptability of the said order passed by the Commissioner, the present revision has been filed.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order under challenge in the present revision is erroneous, contrary to law, irrational and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act). It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Commissioner is cryptic and unsupported by any reasons. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the accident in the instant case took place on 24.04.2010 i.e., after the advent of the amendment Act 45/2009 dated 18.01.2010, the Commissioner herein went wrong in dismissing the application. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that the petitioners herein are also entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is also argued by the learned counsel that had the contents of the petition filed by the petitioners herein been taken into consideration, the order impugned in the revision would not have emanated.

6. Per contra, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company that as the date of accident in the instant case is 24.04.2010 and as it is crucial for awarding compensation, petitioners herein are not entitled for the relief in the present revision. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the learned Commissioner is perfectly justified in rejecting the request of the petitioners as the Central Government issued notification on 31.05.2010 i.e., much subsequent to the death of the petitioners son and that the said notification is only prospective in operation.

7. In the above background, now the issue that boils down for consideration of this Court is Whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is justified in rejecting the request of the petitioners herein for amendment of quantum of the compensation and whether the order passed by the Commissioner requires any correction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions and for the purpose of examining the sustainab