JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28-9-2000 passed in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 66/1993, 3/1996 and 11/2000 made a reference to the larger Bench in view of conflicting judgments of the earlier Division Benches of this Court in the case of (Smt. Rajiyabi Cosman Sayi and another v. M/s. Mackinon Machinazie Co. Pvt. Ltd.)1, A.I.R. 1970 Bombay 278 and (Dhondubai Murlidhar Reddi v. Proprietor Jankidas Khandsari Sugar Factory and others)2, 1991 Mh.L.J. 624. The question involved is---

"Whether Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court and his order a judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Bombay)?"

Since common question of law is involved, the reference is disposed of by common judgment.

2. The contentions raised by Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant, in nutshell 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 workmen 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 Commissioner has to maintain a brief record of the proceedings and is required to pronounce his "judgment" recording findings on each issue and reasons therefor. It is further contended that under section 23 of the Act, the Commissioner has all the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of taking evidence on oath, enforcing attendance of the witnesses and compelling production of documents and material objects, examining witnesses on oath and coming to the conclusion on the basis of evidence adduced and arguments advanced. Under section 24, parties can be represented before the Commissioner by the legal representatives. Under section 27, Commissioner can also submit any question of law for decision of the High Court. The Commissioner can recover as arrears of land revenue any amount ordered to be paid by him, which demonstrates that judicial pronouncement made by the Commissioner is almost in the form of decree pronounced by a Court of law. It is further contended that section 19(2) of the Act ousts jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide any question required to be decided by the Commissioner under the Act. The learned Counsel contended that proceedings before the Commissioner are almost analogous as well as in close proximity to proceedings in the Civil Court. Hence, adjudication done by the Commissioner and recording of his findings on each of the issues and reasons therefor is nothing but a judgment and not an award. In order to substantiate his contentions, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the judgment in the case of (Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. The Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another)3, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1494.

3. It is contended that the Apex Court in the above referred case of Thakur Jugal Kishor Sinha v. The Sitamarthi Central Co-o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document