Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 874 (HP)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Khub Ram

2015-07-13

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act vide W.C. No. 68 of 2011. The matter was compromised and the award was made by the learned Commissioner on 28.2.2008. Respondent No. 1 moved an application under section 151 read with section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking setting aside/ review of order dated 28.2.2008. The application was resisted by the petitioner. It was allowed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi on 9.7.2014 and the award dated 28.2.2008 was reviewed. 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that award dated 28.2.2008 could not be reviewed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide order dated 9.7.2014 since no express provision has been provided under the Employee’s Compensation Act to review the award/order. He has relied upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kala Devi and Others, 1997 ACJ 17. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the respondents has failed to point out under which provision the award dated 28.2.2008 could be reviewed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). 3. Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kala Devi and Others, 1997 ACJ 17 has held that the Commissioner under the Act had no power to review by implication. Division Bench has held as under: “10. There is yet another aspect of the case. Admittedly, the claim petition filed by the claimants was disposed of on 12-6-1984 as having been compromised between the parties whereby the claimants had accepted the compensation of Rs, 10,000 in full and final settlement of their claim. The order dated 12-6-1984 dismissing the claim petition as having been compromised was reviewed by the compensation officer and fresh assessment of compensation was made. 11. The question which thus arises for consideration is whether the Commissioner under the Act has the power of review. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in East India Hotels Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, C.W.P. No. 155 of 1986, decided on 29-12-1995, while dealing with the power of competent authority to review its order under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 by following the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 , has held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. 13. We have perused the provisions of the Act and we are of the opinion that even by implication it cannot be said that the Commissioner under the Act had the power to review. Rather sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 prohibits the review by the Commissioner this sub-rule provides as under:- "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 clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission." 4. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the petition is allowed. Order dated 9.7.2014 rendered by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi exercising the powers of Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act is quashed and set aside. Pending applications, if any, also stands dismissed. No costs.