Honble VERMA, J. - This reference to a larger Bench by a learned Single Jeudge of this court arises in the following way - Petitioner Bashir Khan was employed under respondents No. 1 & 2 as a workman at the relevant period on daily wage basis. While he was discharging his duties as a workman under the respondents a water tank at Forest Nursery, Gudha chandraji, belonging to the State got burst and the debris fell over his legs resulting in fractures of both the legs. Petitioner Bashir Khan submitted a claim petition before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Sawai Madhopur and claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,000/-. Notices of this claim petition were sent to respondents No.l and 2 but they did not care to put in appearance with the result that ex parte proceedings were taken and the evidence of the petitioner was recorded any by order dated 28.9.1987 the Workmens Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 66081.60p. against the aforesaid respondents. A penalty in a sum of Rs. 33008.50p. was also imposed upon the respondents. The respondents were directed to makeae payment with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(2). It appears that on 5.12.1987 respondent No.2 submitted an application before the learned Workmens Compensation Commissioner for setting aside the award dated 28.9.1987 on the ground that notices of the claim were never served on this respondent. The learned Workmens Compensation Commissioner accepted the aforesaid application of respondent No.2 inspite of objection taken on behalf of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the application for setting aside the ex parte award and permitted respondents to oppose the claims after setting aside the ex parte award.

(3). It appears that the claims of the petitioner was taken up for hearing and respondent No.2 filed a reply to the claim petition of the petitioner wherein averments made in the claim petition were denied. The grievance of the petitioner is that the case was fixed up for evidence of the petitioner at camp Gangapur City without informing him of the venue and the claim petition was dismissed on the ground of absence of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner he submitted an application before the learned Workmens Compensation Commissioner on 28.11.1988 for restoration of his claim petition. This application itself was dismissed on 9.6.1989, on the ground of absence of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that notices of the date of hearing were never served on him and it was on 14.8.1989 that the petitioner came to know that his application for restoration had been dismissed in default on 9.6.1989. Having been aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for restoration and dismissal of this claim petition, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Revision No. 949/1989 before this court.

(4). When the revision was taken up for hearing, a preliminary objection was taken up on behalf of the respondents No.l and 2 to the effect that a civil revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. was not maintainable.

(5). Learned counsel for the petitioner countered the preliminary objection by submitting that Workmens Compensation Commissioner was a civil court for purpose of Sec. 115 of the C.P.C. In this connection he relied upon Mangilal Vs. Chunnilal (1) rendered by a learned Single Judge of this court.

(6). Learned Single Judge hearing the revision petition was of the view that the preliminary objection raised by counsel for non- petitioners was likely to affect many cases and hence he thought it proper to refer the following question to be decided by a larger Bench : —

"Whether the Workmens Compensation Commissioner is a Court subordinate to the High Court and as such revision lies against the order passed by the said Commissioner?"

Honble the Chief Justice directed the matter to be listed before regular Division Bench hearing similar cases. This is how, this revision petition has come before us.

(7). We have heard the learned counsel for the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document