The right of appeal must be legitimately traceable to the statutory provisions, and the nature, ambit, and width of the right of appeal must be determined from the statute itself.

Manoj Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The instant appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, 1923 / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Firozabad, having its camp at Agra, in W.C.A. No. 70 of 2010 by which the application of the appellant, under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., for setting aside an ex parte order dated 14.02.2013 has been rejected.

3. It appears that against the order impugned, the appellant had earlier filed Writ C No. 20502 of 2014, which was dismissed on ground that against rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C.

4. The admitted position is that the claimant -respondent filed a claim before the Commissioner under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said Act was enacted to provide for the payment of compensation by certain classes of employers to their employees for injury by accident. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by a Commissioner or to enforce any liability incurred under the Act. Section 20 of the Act provides for appointment of Commissioners whereas Section 22 provides for the form and the manner in which an application of a claim is to be made before the Commissioner. Section 23 provides for the powers and procedure of Commissioners whereas Section 30 provides for appeal against certain categories of orders passed by a Commissioner subject to certain conditions. Thus, the Act is a self contained code in respect of all claims that are raised thereunder. Therefore, whether an appeal against rejection of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of an ex parte order passed by a Commissioner, while exercising his powers under the provisions of the Act, would lie, under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC, is a question which needs to be examined in reference to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

5. It is well known that the right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right. It cannot be assumed to exist unless expressly provided for by statute. Being a creature of statute, remedy of appeal must be legitimately traceable to the statutory provisions. It is true that mere omission or error in quoting the provisions would not affect the maintainability of appeal, if otherwise, the order impugned is amenable to appeal (vide para 23 of apex court decision in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2009) 10 SCC 531 ). In D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 , the apex court, in para 12 of the report, observed that right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the question whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the provision of the statute and not on the ground of propriety or any other consideration. In Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2010) 4 SCC 772 , the apex court reiterated the following principles: that right of appeal is a creature of statute; it is never an inherent right, like that of filing a suit; while conferring such right a statute may impose restrictions, like limitation or pre-deposit of penalty or it may limit the area of appeal to questions of law or sometime to substantial questions of law; and whenever such limitations are imposed, they are to be strictly followed. The apex court in Raj Kumar Shivhare's case (supra) emphasized that the right of appeal being always a creature of a statute, its nature, ambit and width has to be determined from the statute itself; and when the language of the statute regarding the nature of the order from which right of appeal has been conferred is clear, no statutory interpr