DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitionerInsurance Company has challenged the order dated 14th September, 1995 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Courtcum Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro Steel City in Miscellaneous Case No. 1/1998, whereby he has reviewed its earlier order dated 6th December, 1990 passed in W.C. Case No. 5/86.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a claim petition made before the respondent no.1 i.e. Workmen Compensation Case No. 5/86, the learned court passed an order dated 6th December, 1990 in the following terms: The employer must be directed to pay simple interest of 6% on the amount due together with a penalty interest to the extent of 50% of the compensation amount payable. Since the vehicle of opposite party no.1employer was insured, therefore, the liability to pay compensation is also that of the Insurance Companyopposite party no.2. Therefore, he held that both opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with penalty and interest. He accordingly directed the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 to make payment of compensation Rs. 35,470=80 along with 6% interest simple per annum on this amount and 50% penalty of previous amount i.e. Rs. 17,735=04/. It was further observed that if the amount is not paid within two months from the date of order it shall carry further interest @ 6% per annum.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the petitioner paid Rs. 35,470=80 assessed as the compensation, to which it was liable. The owner of the truck, who is the respondent no.2 thereafter preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A No. 17/91(R) before the High Court under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 being aggrieved by the aforesaid order. The said Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed on 28th June, 1991. The respondent no.2 owner thereafter preferred a Miscellaneous Case no. 1/1998 seeking review of the original order/award dated 6th December, 1990, by which it was held liable to pay 6% interest and penalty to the extent of 50% invoking the provisions of Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 41 of the Workmen Compensation Rules, 1994. It is submitted that the review itself was not maintainable under the provisions of Section 6 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The respondent no.1, Workmen Compensation Commissioner only have a limited power for review under the circumstances which are provided thereunder. By referring to Rule 41, it is further submitted that the rules have been framed to carry out the purposes of the Act and therefore even the Rule 41 does not permit the respondent no.1 to exercise powers to review its own order, by which the liability has been held in the terms indicated in the original order. Under Rule 41, only certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable in a proceeding before the Commissioner and those are contained in Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; order 1X; order XIII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII; and Order XXIII, Rule 1 and 2. The specific objections were taken before the learned Commissioner by the petitioner relating to maintainability of the review as also the gross delay in filing it and further on the merits of the claim of the owner. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner Workmen Compensation has, however, proceeded to hold that the review is maintainable under the inherent powers of the concerned court and he has further condoned the gross delay in filing the review and proceeded to hold that the owner in question is not liable to pay the interest as well as penalty part as the vehicle in question was insured with the petitionerInsurance Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the aforesaid ground stating that it is wholly illegal and the learned court has gone beyond jurisdiction in deciding an application for review preferred under Sections 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 41 of the Workmen Compensation Rules, 1994.