JUGLAWATI DEVI Vs. RAMJEE TIWARI ALIAS RANJEE TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the appellant with a prayer that toe appeal should be converted to revision. This matter arises out of an order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Kamrup at Guwahati in W.C. Case No. 9/90, By the impugned order the learned Commissioner refused to pass and order for penalty and interest.

(2.) An appeal is not provided u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the rejection of the prayer of penalty and interest. So, this application for converting the appeal to revision is filed. Mr. S.K, Borkataki, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that this application cannot be- converted to revision. But such an appeal can be converted to revision and revision lies to this Court. Mr, B.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that a revision lies to this Court places reliance on a Division Bench decising of this Court reported in AIR 1951 Assam 88 (Abdul Rashid Vs. Hanuman Oil and Rice Mill) wherein the Division Bench interalia held as follows : "The Commissioner acting under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a Court and is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of tie High Court" That was a case where the Commissioner dismissed a petition for compensation without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the allegations contained in the petition without applying his mind to the case and this Court held that order involves a flagrant abuse of jurisdiction and cannot be regarded as one falling under any Clause of S. 30 and can be interferred with in revision and as such can be rectifide in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction u/s/115 of CPC. This being the position of law, this appeal is converted to revision.

(3.) Office shall register it is revision petition. On the merit of the case I have heard Mr. B.K Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Borkataki, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The brief facts are as follows : On 18.12.89 a workman died. On 19.12.89, the employer (Respondent No, 1) informed the accident and death of workman to the Insurance Co. (Respondent No.2). Thereafter, this information was given To the Commissioner by the employer of the workman, it is further found that even the legal heir of the workman informed the Insurance Co. with regard to the death of the workman and prayed that the payment of the amount may be made to them. When nothing was done, a notice was issued by the Advocate on 28.5.90 and in reply to it, the Insurance Co, wrote back as follows :