Judgment :- 1. This writ petitioner is the minor represented by his father and natural guardian. In this writ petition, he has come forward to challenge the order passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai passed in I.A.No.57/2004 in W.C.252/2002 dated 04.08.2004. 2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner initially filed Workmen's compensation claim in W.C.Case No.252/2002 for having got injured arising out and in the course of employment on 29.04.2002. On the said date, when he was operating the machine, by mistake, his hand pulled into the machine and two fingers of his left hand was cut off. On the said question, notice was ordered to the second respondent/Management, which is a plastic company. 3. It is shocking to note that the petitioner was 15 years old and such employment of labour is totally prohibited under Section 3 of The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act), 1976 and the Act also provides penalty under Section 14 of the Act. Even otherwise, the second respondent has filed counter statement taking a kind of defence including that such employment was granted to give him work during summer vacation so as to earn money for purchase of school books and as such, such employment was given on humanatarian grounds. The petitioner's loss of earning capacity was also disputed. 4. Thereafter, after recording evidence including examining the doctor by name Thiagarajan and by marking documents, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner's salary was Rs.2013/-and the age was 15 years old and the loss of earning capacity was 30% and computed Rs.82,809/-. The second respondent after getting the order did not file appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the contrary, after a period of four months viz., after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, he filed application in I.A.No.57/2004 seeking to reopen the enquiry and to lead further evidence. In the said I.A., notice was ordered to the petitioner and the petitioner filed counter statement objecting to the reopening of the case. 5. In the said I.A., notice was ordered to the petitioner and the petitioner filed counter statement objecting to the reopening of the case. 5. It was contended that the Commissioner's power was circumscribed under Section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, where the Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects and the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a civil court. 6. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Rules were also framed viz., Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924. The authorities power is set out under Rule 37, where he was only having summary jurisdiction. In fact, under Rule 32 (2) of the W.C.Rules, it has been made clear as under:- "32(2) The Commissioner at the time of signing and dating his judgment, shall pronounce his decision and thereafter no addition or alteration shall be made to the judgment other than the correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission." Thus, after passing the final order, there is no power for reopening the order or there is no power to review vests with the authority despite such objection been raised. The authority by his order dated 04.08.2004 held that in order to find out the truth of the statement made in the claim application, such interim application was allowed and enquiry was posted subsequently. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. The writ petition was admitted on 17.11.2004. Pending writ petition, interim stay was grant for a period of eight weeks. Subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that the interim order was extended thereafter. Notwithstanding the same, it is admitted by both sides that the said I.A., was taken up. 8. In any event, in the absence of power to reopen and the rule position being clear, the impugned order of the first respondent is without jurisdiction and hence the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. It is for the petitioner to work out his right in enforcing the order in terms of the provisions under the Act for executing such orders. 9. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by the second respondent to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to work out his right in enforcing the order in terms of the provisions under the Act for executing such orders. 9. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by the second respondent to the petitioner. Consequently, connected WPMP stands closed.