G. P. SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble K. K. Dube, J. and Hon'ble J. P. Bajpai, J. , referring to a Full Bench the following question:

"whether or not a revision would lie to the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure from a decision by the commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, deciding a dispute under Section 19 (2) of that Act?"

( 2 ) THE revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is available against "any Court subordinate" to it. The important point that arises before us is whether the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation is a Court within Section 115 of the Code.

( 3 ) SECTION 2 (1) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, defines "commissioner" to mean a Commissioner for workmen's compensation appointed under Section 20. The State Government is empowered under section 20 to appoint any person to be a Commissioner for workmen's compensation by a notification for such area as may be specified in the notification. Section 19 (1) provides that if any question arises in any proceedings under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation (including any question as to whether a person injured is or is not a workman)or as to the amount or duration of compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent of disablement), the question shall, in default of agreement, be settled by a Commissioner. Section 19 (2) 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 23 provides that the Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects. This section also provides that the commissioner shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and of Chapter 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Another section to be taken notice of is Section 3 (5 ). The scheme of this provision is that if a workman has instituted suit in a Civil Court for damages in respect of an injury, he has no right to claim compensation before a commissioner under the Act. Similarly, if a workman has instituted a claim for compensation in respect of an injury before a Commissioner under the Act, he has no right to institute a suit for damages in respect of the injury before a Civil court.

( 4 ) USING the word "court" used in a generic sense, will include a tribunal. Indeed, the features of a Court and a tribunal are very much similar. Both are vested with the judicial powers of the State. Both are empowered to give binding decisions. The procedure is also similar except this that the procedure of a Court is regularly prescribed, whereas the procedure of a tribunal may not be that strictly prescribed; but the approach adopted by a tribunal is the same as adopted by a Court. The main distinction between a Court and a tribunal is that a Court is a tribunal constituted by the State as a part of the ordinary hierarchy of Courts. A tribunal, on the other hand, is constituted [under a special Act to exercise some J special jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THE distinction between a Court in the strict sense and a tribunal was pointed out by the Supreme Court in A. C. Companies v. P. N. Sharma (AIR 1965 SC 1595 at p. 1599) in the following words:

"the expression 'court' in the context denotes a tribunal constituted by the State as a part of the ordinary hierarchy of Courts which are invested with the State's inherent judicial powers. A sovereign State discharges legislative, executive and judicial functions and can legitimately claim corresponding powers which are described as legislative, executive and judicial powers. U

Click Here to Read the rest of this document