JUDGMENT R.S. Madan. J.- This Civil Revision Petition No.328 of 1989 has been directed against Order dated 03.09.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar whereby he has affirmed the order of the return of the plaint of the petitioner by observing that the award dated 30.05.1984 passed by the Court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Ropar cannot be challenged in the Civil Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Darshan Singh respondent was employed by the petitioner on daily wages of Rs.20 for wheat thrashing on 28-29.04.1980. It was on 29.04.1980 at 4:00 PM while thrashing the wheat that his right hand got crushed in the drumi. This accident took place during the course of the employment. The petitioner did not pay any compensation to the respondent which compelled him to file a petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Ropar on 21.08.1980. The said petition was allowed on 30.05.1984 and the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.48,510 (Rs.32,3401/- under Section 4 Schedule IV and penalty of 50% of such amount under Section 4-A Rs.16,170/-) was awarded. 3. The petitioner filed objections against the award of the Commissioner which was sought to be executed by the respondent. The review petition was also dismissed on 04.04.1986. After seven months of the dismissal of the petition, the Civil Suit was filed on 19.11.1986 for declaration to the effect that the award dated 30.05.1984, passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Ropar was null and void and the same was in violation of the prescribed provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923. The said suit was contested by the parties. On the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed:­ 1. Whether the defendant does not fall within the definition of workman as alleged by the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether award dated 30.05.1984 by Workman Compensation Commissioner is null and void, illegal, inoperative, ineffective and violates the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act? OPP. 3. Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPO. 4. Whether suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and estoppel. 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for? OPP. 6. Relief. 4. Issue No.3 was treated as preliminary wherein it was held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, the plaint was returned by the impugned order of the Sub-judge. OPO. 4. Whether suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and estoppel. 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for? OPP. 6. Relief. 4. Issue No.3 was treated as preliminary wherein it was held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, the plaint was returned by the impugned order of the Sub-judge. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar, Thereafter thrashing the law on the point by referring to various judgments mentioned in the Civil Appeal No.T/l.4.87, the learned Appellate Court upheld the findings recorded by the learned Sub-Judge that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the case when the procedure laid down under the Workmen Compensation Act had been followed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner while passing an award in favour of the respondent. It was also observed by the Appellate Court that the petitioner has been adopting the delaying tactics to pay the compensation by filing the present suit. For the purpose of adjudicating of the case the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act is reproduced as under:­ “Reference to Commissioners - If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation including any question as to whether a person injured is or is not a workman or as to the amount or duration of compensation (including any question as to the nature or extent of disablement), the question shall, in default of agreement, be settled by a Commissioner.” The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the authority trying the petitioner under the Workmen Compensation Act has not followed the procedure under the Act, while passing the award against the petitioner. In support of his arguments he has made a reference to 1986 PLJ 161 titled as State of Haryana and Others versus Vinod Kumar and Others in the said Full Bench this Hon’ble High Court observed that the Civil Court would have jurisdiction only when the impugned order is a nullity. 5. The petitioner could have approached the Appellate Authority under Section 30 of the Act to challenge the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Ropar before filing of the civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ropar. 5. The petitioner could have approached the Appellate Authority under Section 30 of the Act to challenge the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Ropar before filing of the civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ropar. By not resorting to the statutory rights available to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached the Civil Court, which was not warranted under the circumstances mentioned in the case. The plea of the petitioner that no procedure was followed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner while disposing of the petition of the respondent is again without merit because his review petition was dismissed. All such pleas, which were available or open to the petitioner, could be agitated by him before the Appellate Authority. On the asking of the Court, learned counsel was unable to highlight the procedure which the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Ropar did not follow and was under an obligation to follow. Hence, the provision of Section 19(2) of the Workmen Compensation Act was rightly held to be applicable in the present case In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there whereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been specifically barred. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no force in the Civil Revision petition and the same is dismissed. ——————————