JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This revision petition, presented under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 14.5.1993 rendered by the Labour Court, thereby declining the prayer to permit the examination of the counsel as a witness in the case. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the proceeding has been filed by the non-applicants under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In this proceeding, a prayer was made to examine the counsel as a witness. This prayer was refused. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. I have heard Mr. B.L. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.C. Verma, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 4. As noticed, this is a revision petition preferred against the interlocutory order rendered by Labour Court in proceeding initiated under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, 'the Act'). 5. This petition is acarpous at least on two grounds: (a) Counsel of the parties should normally be not dragged into witness-box. The Labour Court's monosyllabic 'no' to such prayer cannot be categorised as erroneous or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such orders are luculently non-interferable in revisional jurisdiction. (b) The Commissioner under the Workmen 's Compensation Act, presiding under the insignia of Labour Court, is in reality not a court but a Tribunal, with limited trappings of court as indicated under Section 23 of the Act and as such his orders are unamenable to interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. Tearing up the tenebrosity enough light is shed by Section 19(2) of the Act. In the result, the revision petition suffered legal impediment and is demonstrably 'untenable' in law. 6. As to (a) above, it can at once be stated that revisional jurisdiction is extremely little and limited. It is circumscribed by the constraints enumerated thereunder. You cannot pitchfork a proceeding under the umbrella of Section 115 of the Code when law played inhibitory role even in matter of 'scope'. Hence, the grievance raised in the revision petition is non-meritorious and order is not subvertible. In Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad AIR 1973 SC 76 , it is held that: In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of first appellate court. Hence, the grievance raised in the revision petition is non-meritorious and order is not subvertible. In Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad AIR 1973 SC 76 , it is held that: In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong, may be in accordance with the law or may not be in accordance with law but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. xxx xxx xxx 7. As to (b) above, the matter is laid to rest by Full Bench decision of this court reported in Yeshwant Rao Shrawanji v. Sampat Tukaram AIR 1979 MP 21 : 1979 ACJ 244 (MP), wherein it is held that: The Commissioner, appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is a Tribunal, and not a civil court. The provisions of Section 19(2) of the ousting jurisdiction of civil court go to show that the Commissioner appointed under the Act is not a civil court. Similarly, the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act also lead to the inference that the Commissioner is not a civil court. The Commissioner does not exercise all the powers of a civil court but exercises only those powers which are mentioned in Section 23 of the Act. It is true that an appeal lies to the High Court against certain orders of the Commissioner under Section 30 of the Act; yet, having regard to the provisions of Sections 3(5) and 19(2) of the Act, it cannot be said that the Commissioner is a civil court or a court in the technical sense. Therefore, an order passed by him deciding a dispute under Section 19(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not revisable by the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. [1965 MPLJ (Notes) 73 approved, 1970 Lab IC 1656(MP) overruled. Therefore, an order passed by him deciding a dispute under Section 19(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not revisable by the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. [1965 MPLJ (Notes) 73 approved, 1970 Lab IC 1656(MP) overruled. AIR 1938 Lah 855 AIR 1951 Assam 88 AIR 1941 Pat 65 (FB) AIR 1960 Bom 387 : 1958-65 ACJ 27 (Bombay) and AIR 1970 Bom 278 :1970 ACJ 350 (Bombay) dissented from. Case- law discussed. 8. The counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision reported in State of Assam v. Pranesh Debnath 1993 ACJ 422 (Gauhati), wherein Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank AIR 1967 SC 1494 , has been considered. However, in view of the aforesaid Full Bench decision, the fate of this revision is not improved. 9. The point embraced by the Us in the court below is evidently short and simple. Yet the procedural wrangle kept the parties lugged into protracted litigation and this naturally filled them with torture, turmoil and teasing illusion. Such futile proceedings and inutile prayer do disservice to law and logic and become 'speed breaker' on the road to justice. These steps should then be spurned by all concerned. 10. Law and justice are not, or should not be, distant neighbours and should be made to live in harmony instead of antinomy. There is no charm in 'complaining' simple question Justice, to be loveable, should be speedy and free from subsultus. It is time to bid adieu to elvish 'eclipse' and 'emaciation' in the procedural pattern. 11. This revision petition must suffer the fate of dismissal. However, the dismissal of this revision petition shall not preclude the applicant from taking any such plea in the appeal in case he suffers an adverse verdict and chooses to file the appeal. This plea may be raised, if permitted by law. 12. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs of this revision petition as incurred. Counsel's fee Rs. 750/-, if certified. 13. The record of the court below is directed to be returned immediately.