No appealable order exists for setting aside ex parte awards under the E.C. Act, as specified orders do not include such applications.

1. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether an order rejecting an application under O.9, R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 refusing to set aside award by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, is appealable under S.30 (1) (a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the E.C. Act')?

2. Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this court under S.30 (1) (a) of the E.C. Act, the employer - appellant herein has filed this appeal, challenging the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (for short 'Commissioner') in Miscellaneous Case No. B - 57 / W.C. Act Fatal / 2002, by which her application under O.9, R.13, read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by learned Commissioner finding no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte award.

3. The facts required to be noticed for determination of this appeal are as under:
3.1. Rampyari and Ramji filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, claiming Rs. 2,15,000 along with interest and penalty stating, inter alia, that the deceased Dashrath died during the course of employment of employer on 24.12.1997, as he received grievous injury resulting into his death. It was alleged that learned Commissioner proceeded ex parte on 12.7.1999 and against the employer - appellant an ex parte award was passed on 31.7.2002 by the learned Commissioner granting compensation of Rs. 2,15,000 along with 18 per cent interest.
3.2. The employer - appellant filed an application under O.9, R.13 of Civil Procedure Code stating, inter alia, that the employer - appellant was never served with the notice by the Commissioner, and thus, there being sufficient cause in not appearing when the case was called up for hearing, and therefore, the ex parte award dated 31.7.2002 be set aside and the original case be restored to its original file for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
3.3. The Commissioner, by its impugned award dated 31.7.2002, rejected the application under O.9, R.13, Civil Procedure Code holding, inter alia, that the employer - appellant herein (Shobhadevi Dammani) was duly served with the notice and she refused to accept the notice issued by the court, therefore, she was having the knowledge of the proceedings and, therefore, award cannot be set aside and thereby rejected the application under O.9, R.13, Civil Procedure Code.

4. Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, the learned counsel appearing for appellant - employer, would submit that learned Commissioner has committed legal error in holding that no sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside ex parte decree. Mr. Rajput would further submit that the appellant - employer had shown sufficient cause for not appearing when the case was called up for hearing, therefore, the ex parte award be set aside and it be remitted for consideration afresh in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned amicus curiae, would submit that order rejecting an application under O.9, R.13 read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not appealable, as no appeal lies under S.30 (1) (a) of the Act of 1923 against an order rejecting an application under O.9, R.13, Civil Procedure Code.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the Commissioner.

7. The question as aforestated would be whether the appeal would lie under S.30 (1) (a) of the E.C. Act against the order rejecting application under O.9, R.13,