GENERAL MANAGER Vs. CHICKABORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya, on June 13, 1990 in Case No. LOM/WCA/CR8/89 -90 awarding certain amount of compensation to respondent -1. The appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) THE appellant has impleaded the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner') as respondent -2. The Officer has raised and objection that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya, is neither a necessary nor a proper party, therefore, he be deleted.

(3.) ON principle, it is not possible to uphold the contention. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation decides the claim as a Tribunal. He performs the role of a Court. He exercises the powers of a Civil Court as Section 23 of the Act empowers him to exercise all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of recording evidence. He is also deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a Judge or a Court cannot be party to the cause, inasmuch as there cannot be a lis between a Court and a party to the proceeding, the Commissioner does not become either a necessary or a proper party to the appeal unless allegations are made against the Commissioner in the appeal which require his presence before the Court to explain the same. For effective and a complete and final adjudication of the appeal, the presence of the Commissioner is not necessary because he has no personal right or interest in the subject matter of the appeal. He is also in no way interest or connected with the relief sought in the appeal against the respondents to the appeal. He has only decided the claim as any other Court or Tribunal does. Therefore, in the absence of any allegations made against him in the appeal, the Commissioner cannot even be held to become proper party to the appeal. Any order passed by the appeal preferred against the award passed in the appeal preferred against the award passed by the Commissioner, whether he is a party to the appeal or not, he is bound to carry it out and comply with same as he - the Commissioner - becomes a Court subordinate to this Court and he is liable to carry out the directions or orders - Whether interim or final - passed in the appeal just as any other Court subordinate to this Court carries out. The fact that the Commissioner is not a party to the appeal does not in any way absolve him from the obligation to carry out the orders and directions. He is also not absolved from the liability for any act of his, commission or omission, amounting to disobedience to the order of this Court. If it is proved that he has wilfully acted in disobedience to the order, in spite of the fact that the order of this Court was brought to his notice he is liable to be dealt with for contempt of this Court.