GOPALI SMT Vs. BHAGCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claimant filed a claim petition before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner, Tonk in respect of death of her daughter Hukma who died in an accident on January 28, 1991 by truck No. R. J. E. 8221. The petitioner's contention was that her daughter Hukma was working on the said truck for loading and unloading and was in employment of the truck owner, who is non-petitioner No-1. The accident occurred during the course of her employment, as such the claim was filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner' ). The petitioner applied for grant of interim compensation and this has been disallowed by the Commissioner by order dated December 18, 1992. It has been observed that prima facie it has not been satisfied that the deceased was an employee of the non-petitioner hence, no order can be passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short M. V. Act ).

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the non-petitioners about the maintainability of the revision petition. According to him the Commissioner is not any Court subordinate to the High Court as Section 115 C. P. C. only covers the civil Courts in normal hierarchy of Courts. This matter was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Bashir Khan v. Ranger Social Vaniki and Ors. (1995-I-LLJ845) a question was framed by a Single Judge which was referred to a Larger Bench and while answering the question whether the Commissioner under the Workmen's Comp-ensation is a Court subordinate to the High Court and as such revision lies against the order passed by the Commissioner, it was held that revision petition under Section 115 C. P. C. was riot maintainable against the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation as the Commissioner was not Court subordinate to the High Court for purposes of Section 115 C. P. C. However in the alternative it was prayed that the revision petition may be treated as a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and this prayer was allowed and the petition was decided on merits. In view of this Full Bench decision, the present revision petition is not maintainable. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that this may be treated as a writ petition and for this the learned counsel for the respondents have no objection. Accordingly I proceed with this petition as it was a writ petition.

(3.) THE relevant provisions in regard to award interim compensation are contained in Sections 140 and 143 of the M. V. Act. These provisions read as under :