ANANT RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. HARDIK METAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order whereby ex-parte award dated 19.2.2001 was set aside.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners had cited judgments in M/s Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmens Compensation Act and another, 1998 Lab. I.C. 34 and In the matter of Compensation for the life of Karim Dad, Planer, Local Shops, Moghalpura, AIR 1930 Lahore 657 , to contend that the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act had no jurisdiction to set aside the previous award for compensation passed by him.

(3.) On going through the judgments cited by the counsel, I find that the same have no application to the facts of the present case. In Karam Dads case (supra) on an award made by the Commissioner, compensation was paid to the deceased's son but subsequently it was discovered that the person to whom compensation was paid, was not dependant on the deceased. Accordingly, an application was filed to the Commissioner to call upon the son of the deceased to refund the money. On the said application, the order was modified. It was in those circumstances that it was said that the Commissioner had no power to set aside the previous award of compensation passed under mistake. In M/s Govind Sugar Mills Ltd.'s case (supra) excess payment was made because of mistake in calculation and then an application was filed for refund of the amount and in that circumstances it was held that ordering refund amounts to review of the order. However, this is not the position in the present case. Award was passed ex-parte and therefore, the Commissioner under the Act had the jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte award on sufficient cause being shown. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. Revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.