CHHIPA ALLARAKHA ISAKJI Vs. BAI SONA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It is of rather a curious nature. Both parties were represented by pleaders before the Commissioner, and the order appealed from is quite simple, viz. "By cogent Rs. 2,250 to be deposited with Commissioner on or before January 3, 1928. No order as to costs." The expression" deposited "there clearly refers to Section 8 of the Act, which provides that "compensation payable in respect of a workman whose injury has resulted in death shall be deposited with the Commissioner," and then the sum so deposited is to be dealt with in certain ways. So, too, in the diary, which was kept by the Commissioner under the rules, after recording that certain issues had been raised and two witnesses heard, the entry runs as follows: " At this stage parties agree that the opposite party should deposit Rs. 2,250 on or before January 3, 1928. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs."

(2.) Now the first point that arises is what jurisdiction have we to interfere with what purports to be a consent order. The appeal is based on Section 30 of the Act, but there are two provisos to that section, viz. (a) "No appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal"; and (b) no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties."

(3.) The first question, therefore, is whether there is here a substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Now a dispute as to whether two parties have agreed or not to a certain decree is not in general a question of law. Still less is it a substantial question of law. It is in general a pure question of fact. But it is argued that under this Act the Commissioner has no power in contested proceedings before him to pass any order or decree by consent of the parties. He must either give his decision, or else the parties must comply with the provisions of Section 28 which deals with the registration of agreements. That section, however, seems to me to refer primarily to cases where the parties have arrived at an agreement prior to any hearing before the Court. In that case Section 23 provides inter alia that the agreement shall be registered after notice. Further, the rules which have been framed by the Governor-General in Council, under Section 32(c) of the Act, provide in Rule 44 for this agreement being in a particular form, and for the Commissioner issuing notices with reference to it and so on. Those rules, I think, clearly contemplate an agreement prior to any hearing by the Commissioner. 1 should here like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Court of thanking Mr. Coyajee (junior) as amicus curiae for his industry in obtaining for us these rules which have been published in the Gazette of Government of India on June 28, 1924, at p. 586, and which were unknown not only to the Sheristedar of the Court, but also to counsel appearing in the case. Nor apparently were they included in, at any rate, one of the text books which counsel had in Court,