OFFICER COMMANDING Vs. SITRAM BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order, dated 17.8.2001, passed in WP(C) No. 1198/2001, a learned Single Judge of this court dismissed the writ petition filed, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the appellant herein questioning the legality and validity of the order, dated 27.7.2001, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act (in short, 'the Act') in Claim Case No. 38 of 2000, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,17,644.00, with interest @ 12% per annum, the ground of dismissal of the writ petition being that the award, in question, is appealable under Section 30 of the Act.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. H. Dijen, learned Counsel for the workman -respondent No. 1. I have also heard Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

(3.) ON a careful examination of the materials on record including the impugned award, we find that the workman sought for compensation for the disablement, which he had suffered as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which, according to the workman arose, on 25.4.1998, out of, and in course of, his employment. Such an application, undoubtedly, falls within the ambit of Section 19 of the Act. A Commissioner under the Act, is empowered to deal with such an application. Situated, thus, there can be no escape from the conclusion that in the case at hand, the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to pass appropriate order determining the amount of compensation payable to the workman. Hence, if the Commissioner has made any error or if the award suffers from any incorrectness or illegality, it will still be an award passed by an authority, which had the jurisdiction to deal with, and decide, the application made under Section 19 of the Act. When an authority or a court has jurisdiction, but decides the matter incorrectly or wrongly, the remedy does not lie in challenging such a decision by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution if an alternative remedy in the form of a statutory appeal is available to the aggrieved person. However, when an authority has no jurisdiction and still entertains an application or passes an order on such an application, such an order can be challenged under Articles 226 and/ or 227 of the Constitution as an order passed without jurisdiction even if a statutory right of appeal, in such a case, is available to the aggrieved party.