ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The short question that fails for consideration in this appeal is whether an order rejecting an application order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') refusing to set aside award by Commissioner Employee's Compensation is appealable under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the E.C. Act')? Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 30(1)(a) of the E.C. Act, the employee/appellant herein has filed this appeal, challenging the order dated 31/7/2002 passed by Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (for short 'Commissioner') in Miscellaneous Case No. B-57/W.C. Act Fatal/2002, by which, her application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') was rejected by learned Commissioner finding that no sufficient cause for setting-aside the ex parte award. 2. The facts required to be noticed for determination of this appeal are as under: 3.1 Smt. Ram Pyari and Shri Ramji filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner Employee's Compensation, claiming Rs. 2,15,000 along with interest and penalty stating inter alia that deceased Dashrath died during the course of employment of employer on 24/12/1997, as he received grievous injury resulting into his death. It was alleged that learned Commissioner proceeded ex parte on 12/7/1999 and against the employer/appellant, an ex parte award was passed on 31/7/2002 by the learned Commissioner granting compensation of Rs. 2,15,000 along with 18% interest. 3.2 The employer/appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC stating inter alia that the employer/appellant was never served with the notice by the Commissioner, and thus, there being sufficient cause in not appearing when the case was called up for hearing, and therefore, the ex parte award dated 31/7/2002 be set-aside and the original case be restored to its original file for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 3.3 The Commissioner, by its impugned award dated 31/7/2002, rejected the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC holding inter alia that the employer/appellant herein (Smt. Shobhadevi Dammani) has duly served with the notice and she refused to accept the notice issued by the Court, therefore, she was having the knowledge of the proceedings and therefore award cannot be set-aside and thereby rejected the application Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing for appellant/employer would submit that learned Commissioner has committed legal error in holding that no sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside ex parte decree. Mr. Rajput would further submit that appellant/employer had shown sufficient cause for not appearing when the case was called up for hearing, therefore, the award ex parte be set-aside and it be remitted for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Ghanshyma Patel, learned amicus curie would submit that order rejecting an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code, is not appealable, as no appeal lies under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act of 1923 against an order rejecting application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. 5. I have learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the Commissioner. 6. The question as aforestated would be whether the appeal would lie under Section 30(1)(a) of the E.C. Act against the order rejecting application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Section 30(1) of the E.C. Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the orders specified in sub-section (1) clause (a) to (e) i.e. specified orders enumerated in Section 31 of the E.C. Act, subject to fulfillment of proviso provided in sub-section (1). The appeal to the High Court against certain specified orders of the Commissioner functioning under the Act and the various sub-clauses in Section 30 of the E.C. Act did not include an order passed by the Commissioner refusing to set-aside an ex parte award. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 30(2) of the E.C. Act, the Governor-General in Council is pleased to make the following rules known as Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 (hereinafter called as "Rules of 1924"). 7. The Act is a social welfare legislation. It provides for remedies in the event of employment injury arising out of and in the course of employment in terms of Section 3 of the Act. As I mentioned earlier, a right of appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act provides for powers and procedure of Commissioners. It provides for remedies in the event of employment injury arising out of and in the course of employment in terms of Section 3 of the Act. As I mentioned earlier, a right of appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act provides for powers and procedure of Commissioners. The Commissioners shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 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 Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and of Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the provisions of CPC strictly speaking may not be available to the Commissioner. Even otherwise, it is seen that Order 9 Rule 13 would provide for setting aside an ex parte decree against the defendant. It provides for an ex parte order being set aside in the event of an application to the Court by the aggrieved person. The authority is to be satisfied that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause for hearing. The proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 would state that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. 8. By virtue of Rule 41, of Rules of 1924 certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been made applicable. Rule 41 states as under: 41. 8. By virtue of Rule 41, of Rules of 1924 certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been made applicable. Rule 41 states as under: 41. Certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1905 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, namely, those contained in Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX; Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII; and Order XXIII, Rules 1 and 2 shall apply to proceeding before Commissioner, in so far as they may be applicable, thereto: Provided that-- (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 or proper to 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 interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced. 9. A bare reading of the Rule 41 of Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 would show that Order IX has been made applicable to the proceeding before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, but Order 43, Rule 1, CPC has not been made applicable. An appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC lies against an order made Rule 13 of Order IX, in view of clause (d) of Order 43, Rule 1, CPC. But the said provision has not been applicable to the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by virtue of Rule 41 of Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924. Therefore, the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, CPC would not be maintainable. The only provision regarding appeal against the orders made by Workmen Commissioner Authority is enumerated in Section 30 of the E.C. Act. But Section 30(1)(a) of the E.C Act, no appeal can be filed against an order dismissing an application for setting aside the ex parte order, as there is no provision for filing such an appeal under Section 30 of the E.C. Act and by virtue of Rule 41, the provision of Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C. are also not made applicable. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the appeal under Section 30 of the E.C. Act would not be maintainable against an order refusing to set-aside ex parte award by Commissioner. 10. In case of Parveen Industries v. Banawar Singh, 1990 ACJ 980 the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court while considering the said question held that order rejecting Order IX Rule 13, appeal under Section 30(1) of the E.C. Act is maintainable. Para-5 of the report held as under: 5. The only provision regarding appeal against the orders made by the Workmen's Compensation Authority is found in Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act Under clause (a) of Section 30(1) an appeal lies to this Court from the orders of the Commissioner awarding compensation. Therefore, it is clear that if an order awarding compensation has been made by the Workmen's Compensation Authority and thereafter an application was made under Order IX Rule 13 praying for setting aside that order on the ground that the appellant had been placed ex parte without justification and that application is dismissed, the only course open to the party is to prefer an appeal against the order awarding compensation as provided in Section 30(1)(a) of the Act. But no appeal can be filed against an order dismissing the application for setting aside the order as there is no provision for filing such an appeal under Section 30 of the Act and under the Rule 41, the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. are not made applicable. 11. Similarly, in a decision reported in Ram Shiromani Mishra v. Shiv Mohan Singh and another, AIR 1997 MP 202 , the M.P. High Court has held that by virtue of Rule 240 of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1994, only Order 9 of CPC has been made applicable, but Order 43 has not been made applicable, expressly by Rule 240, therefore, against an order rejecting application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, a miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC would not be maintainable. Para 10 of report held as under: 10. The Rule 240 of the Rules' expressly states, unless otherwise provided in the Act or in those Rules, no orders of the First Schedule of C.P.C. shall be applicable other than those mentioned in the list. The intention of the Rule Making Authority is explicit. Para 10 of report held as under: 10. The Rule 240 of the Rules' expressly states, unless otherwise provided in the Act or in those Rules, no orders of the First Schedule of C.P.C. shall be applicable other than those mentioned in the list. The intention of the Rule Making Authority is explicit. It did not want to burden the procedure of Claims Tribunal with all the provisions of First Schedule of C.P.C. Therefore, only a chosen few orders have been mentioned in Rule 240 of 'the Rules', Once this aspect of the Rule 240 is borne in mind, it would be crystal clear that the Rule Making Authority omitted application of Order 43, Rule 1 of C.P.C. to the cases under Claims Tribunal. The omission deliberate-or otherwise has to be respected. There is no other provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short) or the Rules which makes Order 43 of C.P.C. applicable. Section 4(1) of C.P.C. reads as under: 4. Savings--(1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force. It is clear from the aforesaid section that the Rules of procedure of Special Tribunal or a Court shall override the provisions of C.P.C. Thus the Rule 240 of 'the Rules' by implication overrides the provisions of C.P.C. and makes only certain provisions in the First Schedule applicable. Thus, it is held that order passed by Commissioner refusing to set-aside ex parte award under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC; appeal under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act of 1923 is not maintainable in Law. Accordingly, instant appeal filed against the order dated 31/7/2002 is dismissed as not maintainable. However, appellant/employer is at liberty to challenge the impugned award in accordance with law. Certified copy of the award impugned be returned to the learned counsel for the appellant on furnishing attested photocopy of the same.