JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2.This petition arises out of the following set of circumstances :-- The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed Workmen's Compensation Case No. 59/94 against the respondent No. 1 claiming compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. The petitioner who is a practising Advocate, was representing the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. It appears that the petitioner filed a compromise-cum-settlement before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, on behalf of the claimants, but the learned Commissioner found that compromise was not permissible as the offer was below the permissible limit. The case, therefore, proceeded on merit and while disposing of the case, the learned Commissioner made following observations against the petitioner :--- "... right from 17-8-1996 till 5-4-1997 so also on 28-5-1997, both parties remained absent; along with their advocates on record. .......... This is nothing but cheating and misleading the Court itself, for the best reasons known to the learned Adv. Shri Bhingardive who appears on behalf of the applicants and signed below the application Exh. U-11 on 23-7-1996. I do think, in the premises, such type of anti-social element who has taken law in his own hands and by his own 'brain-child', he has not assisted the Court, which is supposed to be, but deceived the Court and defrauded the applicant, who is widow and legal dependent of the deceased workman for whom the application has been initiated for claiming workmen's compensation amount from the respondent employer. On this count alone it is deserved to be deprecated and ridiculed with high words, therefore, on this backdrop as observed by the Court in the aforesaid paras, it would be advisable to treat it as an eye opener for others who wanted to deal with and prosecution with Women Compensation matters before Ex-officio Commissioners for Workmen Compensation throughout the State of Maharashtra as an example to follow it in its 'letter and spirit' in a positive and constructive manner, with the protection of the best interest of the litigants i.e. clients, who have paid the fees and who is not knowing the legal provisions like the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. On this count, I am to think fit and equitable so also just that a copy of this judgment be earmarked to the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa with the recommendation to initiate a disciplinary action against the defaulting concerned Advocate as named above in this judgment. So also a copy of this judgment and order be given and addressed to Hon. Additional Registrar of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Division Bench, Aurangabad for information and necessary action, in case, an appeal lies from the judgment and order of this Court." It is further observed that, "I do think to observe here that is cheating and defraudation by the concerned learned Advocate Shri Bhingardive, a legal luminary of the Bar, through his conduct and negative indulgence in this matter, should be condemned with high words." In para 17 of the judgment, it is further observed that, "the learned Advocate Shri Bhingardive has taken undue advantage of illiteracy of the applicant No. 1 Smt. Mangalbai w/o Bhanudas Sharnagat, and indirectly colluded with the respondent Shri Punamchand s/o Kanhayalal Agarwal, without getting the so called settlement-cum-agreement fully registered as per section 28 of the W.C. Act, 1923; which is squarely applicable in this matter. The so called compromise/settlement is not permissible either in the eyes of law......" 3.The petitioner submits that the remarks which are passed, as stated hereinabove, are totally uncalled for and the same may be expunged. On behalf of the petitioner Shri R.J. Godbole, the learned Counsel, urged that it is a cardinal principle that a Judge should take special care in making disparaging remark against a person or authority whose conduct comes in for consideration before him in any case to be decided by him and should not make any uncalled for remarks which would be against the judicial discipline. It is submitted that if the relief sought for can be given to the applicant without dubbing the conduct of the person concerned to be mala fide then the Court should refrain from coming to any conclusion on mere assertions in as much as the allegations of mala fides have to be specifically made and would have to be established by the person who seeks relief on that ground. In the present case, there was no grievance from any of the claimants that the initial settlement was without the consent of the claimants. In the present case, there was no grievance from any of the claimants that the initial settlement was without the consent of the claimants. Quite apart if the amount which can be settled was inadequate it was open for the learned Commissioner to disagree and reject it without making uncalled for remarks. 4.It appears that the agreement of settlement which is said to have been entered into by the petitioner on behalf of the claimants with the opposite party was not registered as required under the Act. Therefore, we feel that, in fact, there was no agreement of settlement in the eyes of law. Moreover, it is for the learned Commissioner either to accept or reject the settlement if it is found to be unreasonable. Instead of adopting that recourse we feel, the learned Commissioner, adopted the recourse to use harsh words against the petitioner and intemperate language against the petitioner who along with Advocate for other side, had remained absent throughout for a considerable period when the complaint was called for hearing. Be that as it may. The power to expunge any remark made by a Court in a judgment is an extraordinary power and it can be exercised when a clear case is made out. We find that in the present case, the learned Commissioner ought to have taken special care in making disparaging remarks whose conduct came before him for consideration in a case to be decided by him. We feel that the learned Commissioner should not have made any uncalled for remarks which would against the judicial discipline. In the facts and circumstances, we may mention that to avoid harsh words and intemperate language and to have self-restraint is a part of judicial training of a Judge and, therefore, the learned Commissioner should be extremely careful while commending upon the conduct of another individual particularly when that individual is not before the Court. The petitioner was not even given hearing before the aforesaid remarks were passed. 5.For the reasons stated hereinabove, we feel that this is a fit case to expunge the remarks made by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, in his judgment, as hereinabove quoted. We also find no justification for the Commissioner to make a reference to Bar Council of Maharashtra Goa. 6.In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause 'B'. We also find no justification for the Commissioner to make a reference to Bar Council of Maharashtra Goa. 6.In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause 'B'. There shall be no orders and to costs. Petition allowed. *****