YAKUB Vs. WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER BHILWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara had sent a requisition to the Collector for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1350/- from the present appellant by virtue of the power vested in him u/s 31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. THE Collector,accordingly, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilwara to effect the recovery. THE learned Sub-Divisional Officer it seems, consented the proceedings to be under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act and sent a notice to the appellant to make the payment. THE appellant raised certain objections which the learned Sub-Divisional Officer forwarded to the respondent (Workmen's Compensation Commissioner ). THE latter replied that the recovery should be made in terms of the original requisition. THEreupon the learned Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the objections of the appellant. THE appellant then preferred the first appeal in the Court of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, taking the plea that the recovery that was sought to be effected was not a public demand. This argument was repelled by the respondent who argued that the recovery was being made u/s 31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that in view of that provision a recovery could be made as an arrear of land revenue without invoking the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. THE first appeal was rejected.

(2.) HERE before us the learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the recovery proceedings on two grounds. The first argument is that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to make the recovery, the power in this regard having been vested in the Collector only. The second argument is that his objections to the recovery have not been decided. Both these arguments rest on the assumption that the proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Officer were proceedings under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. This assumption, despite the vehement argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, is entirely erroneous. Sec. 31 of the Workmen's Compensation Act clearly says that for the purpose of recoveries under this Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner will be a 'public Officer" authorised to make a requisition for recovery as an arrear of land revenue in conformity with the provisions of the the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 which is a Central Act. There is no procedure in the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central), analogous to the procedure laid down in Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act for the hearing of objections. On the contrary, the Collector is bound to make the recovery in term of the requisition. Again once the Collector has received the requisition, he can direct that recovery be made by the subordinate Revenue Officers in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. This is exactly what has been done in this case.