JUDGMENT - (1) This purports to be an application in revision under section 115 of the C. P. C. from the order of the Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmans Compensation, Ahmedabad the material facts may be briefly stated as follows:

One Deoshankar and another Mohanlal were working in the Fine Knitting Mills Company Ltd., at Ahmedabad. On 29-7-1955, they made applications before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, stating that they received personal injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. They stated known persons who were instigated by one Meghasing on behalf of the company. The applicant Deoshankar had a fracture on his hand. The applicants were removed to the Civil Hospital. Deoshankar had a swelling on his right ankle, and Mohanlal had a fracture on his hand. The applicants were removed to the Civil Hospital. Deoshankar was discharge on 4-8-1955, and Mohanlal was discharged on 24-10-1955. The monthly wages of Deoshankar amounted to Rs. 110/- and those of Mohanlal amounted to Rs. 120/-. Mohanlal claimed Rs. 176/-. It is not necessary to state the claim made by Deoshankar because he has not come up in revision. The Mill opposed the applications and contended that he applicants did not receive injuries by accident arising out of or in the course of this quarrel that they received the injuries. The Commissioner, believing the evidence of one Shivprased, who was examined for the Mill, held that the applicants had failed to prove that they received injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. From that decision, Mohanlal alone has come up in revision.

(2) Mr. Patel for the opponent raised a preliminary objection contending that the revision application was not competent. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Spring Mills Ltd. v. G. D. Ambedkar, 51 Bom LR 148. This decision related to the question as to whether an application in revision would lie from the decision given by the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In the course of their judgment, however. Their Lordships, relying upon an unreported decision of the Division Bench in Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Bhima Raoji, (Civil Revn. Appln. No. 255 of 1926 Bom), observed at p. 152 of Bom LR: (at p. 191 of AIR) as follows:

"That was a decision given so long ago as January 11, 1927, by Mr. Justice Fawcett and Mr. Justice Patkar. In a short judgment they stated:

"We think it is clear that the Commissioner under the Workmans Compensation Act, VIII of 1923, is not a Court within the meaning of S. 115, C.P.C. Sir. Thomas Strangman for the applicant has frankly conceded that this is so, and has drawn our attention to the provisions which supports that proposition. In particular those of sub-section (2) of S. 19 and Ss. 23 and 27 seem to me practically conclusive on the point."

In order to appreciate this objection, it is necessary, first of all, to refer to some of the provisions ofthe Workmens Compensation Act, Section 20 the Workmens Compensation Act gives authority to the State Government to appoint a Commission for workmens compensation for such local area as may be specified in the notification. The powers of the Commissioner have been specified in section 22. Section 23 in substance provides that the Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of taking evidence on oath (which such Commissioner is empowered to impose) and of enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects. (and the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all purposes such as section 195 and of Ch. XXXV of the Cr. P. C., 1898). Section 30 provides for appeals and lays down that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the decisions enumerated at clauses (a) to (e). The first proviso, in effect lays down that no appeal shall lie against any order unless the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document