NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. KANAI DASGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order, dated 16.6.2005, passed in T.S. (W.C.) 2 of 1998, the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, North Tripura, Kailashahar, has awarded, in all, a sum of Rs. 1, 71,415.00 as compensation to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, with further direction that the said amount of compensation would carry simple interest (c) 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization of the entire amount. The learned Commissioner further directed the Insurer, namely, the petitioner herein, shall make payment of the said awarded amount of compensation with interest: within a period of 45 days. Aggrieved by the award so passed, the Insurer made an application for review of the directions given to them for making payment of the interest. This review application gave rise to Misc. (Review) 10 of 2005. As there was delay in making the application for review, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also made by the Insurer seeking condonation of delay. This application for condonation of delay gave rise to Civil Misc. No. 11 of 2005. By order, dated 15.6.2005, the learned Commissioner declined to condone the delay and in consequence thereof, another order was passed, on the same day, i.e. on 15.6.2005, by the learned Commissioner, dismissing the review application. It is in such circumstances that the Insurer has come to this Court with the present application made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned Counsel for the petitioner - Insurer, and Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned Counsel for the owner -respondent No 1. I have also heard Mr. P. Saha, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant - respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) WHILE dealing with the objection, so raised, it needs to be noted that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be limited or fettered by any enactment, though the fact remains that the writ jurisdiction, even under Article 227, must be exercised to effectuate the rule of law and not to abrogate it and while the power under Article 227 cannot be circumscribed by any enactment, the legislative intent, as evidenced by the enactment, must be given due regard and the exercise of jurisdiction even under Article 227 has to be consistent; with the provisions of the enactment and not contrary thereto. See Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India : 1997 (5) SCC 536.