JUDGMENT 1. - Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 Madan Nath filed a claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in the year 1992 stating therein that while working on crusher machine, he suffered injuries and become permanent disabled. Therefore, compensation as claimed by the respondent No. 3 has been awarded. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Om Prakash Singhal is the owner of M/s. Laxmi Stone Crushers and the petitioner is hot working as manager or looking after the affairs of firm M/s. Laxmi Stone Crushers. It is submitted that the award was passed ex-parte on 31.7.1998 without serving notice upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 26,216/- along with interest. 3. Since, the aforesaid payment was not paid by the petitioner, therefore, the S.D.O., Ajmer vide its order dated 5.3.2001 has attached the marshal jeep bearing No. RJ-Q1-7985 for recovery of the said amount. 4. When the petitioner came to know about the ex-parte award moved an application on 1.5.2000 for setting aside the award. In the application the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not working as manager, therefore, is not responsible for making payment of compensation, awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ajmer. So far as fixing a liability upon the petitioner is concerned, the Commissioner has wrongly held the petitioner responsible for making payment of compensation and not the owner of firm M/s. Laxmi Stone Crushers. 5. Mr. Ranveer Singh, put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3. It is not disputed that the claim petition was filed by him on 9.3.1992. It is denied that award, which has been passed ex-parte whereas notice was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner wilfully and intentionally has not appeared before the Commissioner. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent strongly controverted the submissions made on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is not working as manager of firm M/s. Laxmi Stone Crushers, in fact the petitioner was working as manager of the firm. The petitioner is also responsible to make payment of compensation to respondent No. 3. 7. At the time of passing award the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Ajmer has observed that the respondent No. 3 was working as workman and while working on the crusher machine has sustained fracture us right leg and ultimately right leg of the petitioner was operated. The petitioner is also responsible to make payment of compensation to respondent No. 3. 7. At the time of passing award the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Ajmer has observed that the respondent No. 3 was working as workman and while working on the crusher machine has sustained fracture us right leg and ultimately right leg of the petitioner was operated. The respondent No. 3 become permanent disabled. Looking to 24 years' age of the respondent No. 3 and after considering all aspects, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded Rs. 26,216/- as compensation. It is also held that the petitioner was working as manager in the firm M/s. Laxmi Stone Crusher. 8. The application for modification moved on behalf of petitioner was decided by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 31.8.2000. Whale considering the application dated 1.5.2000, the Commissioner held that as there is no provisions of review the award, therefore, application was rejected. 9. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Rule-41 at Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924, The statute provides that certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to apply-Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these rules the following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and they are applicable thereto: (a) for the purpose of facilitating the application of the said provisions the Commissioner may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper lo adapt them to the matter before him; (b) the Commissioner may, for sufficient reasons, proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions, if he is satisfied that the interest of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced. 10. Section-21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 also relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which deals with the provisions applicable to make of rule or bye-laws after previous publication. As per Section 21, the authority is having power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules of bye-laws. 11. The analogous provisions of Section 23 of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 also provides power to make or issue to include power to add, to amend, vary or rescind orders. 12. As per Section 21, the authority is having power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind, notifications, orders, rules of bye-laws. 11. The analogous provisions of Section 23 of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 also provides power to make or issue to include power to add, to amend, vary or rescind orders. 12. Upon careful perusal of provisions of Rule 41 of Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 and Section 21 of Central General Clauses Act, 1897 certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure can be applied to proceed before the Commissioner, but the discretion was also given to the Commissioner and when applying the principles of CPC, the Commissioner may for sufficient reasons proceed otherwise than in accordance with other provisions if he is satisfied that the interest of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced. Meaning thereby, the Rule 41 is discretionary power given to the Commissioner. Similarly, the Central General Clauses Act and the Rajasthan General Clauses Act gives power to make or issue to include power to add, to amend, vary and rescind orders. It is for the authorities to confer power by adding or amending or rescinding the orders as per procedure laid down under the Act. Admittedly there is no power of review of the award. 13. So far as rejection of application dated 1.5.2000 is concerned, I find no illegality in the order impugned dated 31.7.1998. Even otherwise also, there is disputed fact that the petitioner denied that he is working as manager although the respondent No. 3 and Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ajmer has categorically observed that the petitioner was working as Manager. 14. Thus, the award impugned does not suffers from any illegality apparent on the face of record, I find no merit in the writ petition, consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 15. The interim order granted by this Court on 27.4.2001 stands vacated. 16. The Stay Application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******