1948     Present: Nagalingam J.

PODINONA, Applicant, and JAMES, Respondent

S. C. 376-Case -stated by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation
under section 39 of Ordinance No. 19 of 1934 

Workmen's Compensation-Distress warrant for recovery of sum due- Seizure by Fiscal-Claim made-Proper procedure-Ordinance- Section 41.

An order for compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,800 was made by the Commissioner in favour of the applicant against the respondent. For the recovery of this amount a distress warrant was issued to the Fiscal who seized movable property. A claim to the property was made by a third party and the Fiscal reported the claim to the District Court which refused to investigate the claim.

Held, that neither the District Judge nor the Commissioner had jurisdiction to investigate the claim. The proper procedure in such a case would be for the Commissioner to stay the sale and refer the parties to a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the question of title.

CASE stated by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

M. M. Kumarakulasingham, with E. Perera, for the applicant.

V. Tennekoon, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General, on notice.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 5, 1948. NAGALINGAM J.-

This is a case stated by the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under section 39 of the Ordinance for the opinion of this Court on the following facts :-

An order for compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,800 was made by the Commissioner in favour of the applicant against the respondent. For the recovery of this amount the Commissioner, in pursuance of the powers vested in him by section 41 of the Ordinance, which empowers him to recover the compensation as if it were a fine imposed by a Magis­trate, issued a warrant of distress to the fiscal. The fiscal effected a seizure of certain movable property, which was claimed by a third party. The claim was reported by the fiscal to the District Court but the Court has declined jurisdiction to investigate the claim and has further intimated to the fiscal that no such claim should be referred to that Court.

In these circumstances, the question that arises for determination is as to whether the order of the District Judge is right, and if so, whether it is competent to the Commissioner himself to hold an inquiry into the claim, or if the Commissioner has no powers, what other tribunal should inquire into the claim.

Though the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance are in the nature of civil proceedings, insofar as they relate to a determina­tion of the compensation payable, from the moment that the Com­missioner exercises function to make recovery of the compensation awarded, the proceedings become governed by the Criminal Procedure Code for section 41 of the Ordinance says,

" The Commissioner is to proceed to recover the amount of compensation as if it were a fine imposed by a Magistrate upon such person and for the purpose of such recovery shall have all the powers upon a Magistrate for the recovery of fines imposed by him."

The power which a Magistrate derives to recover a fine impo