(1.) The moot question for determination of this Court in this writ petition is as to whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (for short 'the Commissioner') has power to review his own Award passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act' ).
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of supply of security guards. On request of Respondent No. 4 Vinod Agarwal of M/s. Agarwal Iron and Steel Company Ltd. , the petitioner firm supplied some security guards, including two gun-men, out of whom Raj Kumar Singh, husband of Respondent No. 3 was one, who was shot dead while on duty. The case of the petitioner, however, is that at the time of the incident the services of the deceased gun-man were being utilized by the Respondent No. 4 for personal use and as such he could not be treated to be on duty. The respondent No. 3 Kamlesh, wife of late Raj Kumar Singh, then filed a claim under the Act for compensation of Rs. 4,15,960/- alongwith 12% interest and also 50% penalty. Such claim was made against the petitioners and the Respondent No. 4. After considering the case of the respective parties, the Commissioner passed an Award on 31-3-2005, granting compensation of Rs. 3,79,563/- against the Respondent No. 4. Then after a gap of nearly two months, on 25/30-5-2005 the Respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 23 of the Act; Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 (for short the Rules') and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C.), with the following prayer: "it is, therefore, prayed that the Judgment dated 31-3-2005 be set aside as against the applicant"
(3.) I have heard Sri V. R. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Sri C. B. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri Anoop Trivedi for claimant-Respondent No. 3 and Sri R. K. Awasthi for Respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appeared for Respondents No. 1 and 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents had made a statement that they do not wish to file counter-affidavit and thus, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.