Sri B.C Seetharamarao, Advocate for Petitioner
Sri Chandrashekar, P. Patil, Advocate for R1
Sri P.G Mogali, Advocate for R2
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.:—
By the impugned order Annexure-A dated 29.10.12003, the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner, Koppal (“Commissioner” for short) has rejected the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner under Order-IX, Rule-13 C.P.C, for setting aside the award Annexure-B dated 31.10.2000 passed in WC. 24/2001/1992.
2. The records disclose that one Ramanna, son of the Respondent No. 1 herein died on 06.07.1997 during the course and out of employment in the establishment of respondent No. 2 herein. As such, Respondent No. 1 herein filed claim petition before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner, Koppal in W.C.A CWC/F. 24/1998, who passed an award in favour of claimant granting compensation of Rs. 2,26,380/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of application till the date of payment. The petitioner-Insurance Company thereafter, filed petition Under Order-IX Rule-13 C.P.C, r/w. Rule-41 of the Workmens' Compensation Rules, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Rules’ for short) praying for setting aside the said award dated 31.10.2000 mainly on the ground that the Divisional Manager is not served with notice as he was not made party before the Commissioner and that the notices were served only on Branch Manager of insurance company. As aforesaid, the said petition filed by the petitioner is rejected by the Commissioner.
3. Sri B.C Seetharama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the Insurance Company should have been represented by the Divisional Manager who is the appropriate authority, but not the Branch Manager and as such, the notice, though served on the Branch Manager is not a valid service of notice; that thus the petitioner could not represent before the Commissioner and put forth its case effectively; consequently the impugned award is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that Rule-41 of the Rules provides for application of Order-IX of C.P.C, to the proceedings before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of Workmens' Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and that therefore, the Commissioner should have exercised his jurisdiction on merits; that the Commissioner is not justified in rejecting the said application filed under Order-IX Rule-13 of C.P.C, on the ground of want of jurisdiction. He further submitted that as no appeal is provided against the order passed on the application filed under Order-IX Rule-13 C.P.C, by the Commissioner, this Writ Petition is maintainable.
4. On the other hand, Sri P.G Mogali, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, by placing reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Praveen Industries v. Banawar Singh . ILR 1990 KAR 605 DB., submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the only course open to the petitioner is to approach the appellate Court U/S. 30 of the Act by challenging the award dated 31.10.2000 It is further submitted that since the award dated 31.10.2000 is passed on merits by the Commissioner, he has rightly refused to entertain the application filed by the petitioner. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. The bare reading of Rule-41 of the Rules makes it clear that the provisions of Order-IX C.P.C, shall apply to the proceedings before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner. In view of the same, the Commissioner has rightly taken up the said application filed by the petitioner for consideration. The Commissioner has however rejected the same on merits and not on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Though the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is cryptic, the same is passed on merits of the application wherein the Commissioner has clearly observed that as the award passed by him on 31.10.2000 has attained finality and it cannot be withdrawn or set aside.
6. It is true that no appeal can be filed under Order 43 Rule-1 of C.P.C, as against the order passed on the application filed under Order-IX Rule-13 of C.P.C, by the Commissioner in the proceedings arising out of the Workmens' Compensation Act. Though the provisions of Order-IX Rule-13 of C.P.C are applicable to the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act, the provisions of Order 43 Rule-1 of C.P.C, are not made applicable to the proceedings under the Workmens' Compensation Act under Rule-41 of the ‘Rules’. Consequently, the appeal under Order 43 Rule-1 C.P.C, as against the order passed on the application filed under Order-IX Rule-13 C.P.C, is not maintainable. However, the only course open for the parties is to file an appeal under Section 30 of the Act against the order of awarding compensation.
The Division Bench of this Court, in the decision cited supra while dealing with similar situation observed thus:
“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 or 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.
If, for any reason, as actually happened in this case, by the time the application for setting aside the ex parte against the original order is over, the only course open for the party is to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay, as the said provision is expressly made applicable under Section 30(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.”
7. It is clear from the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court that under such a situation the only course open to the parties is to prefer an appeal against the order awarding compensation as provided under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act. Though the Division Bench did not specifically consider the question as to whether the writ lies against the order passed by the Commissioner on the application filed under Order IX Rule-13 of C.P.C, it has clearly held that the only course open to the parties to the proceedings before the Commissioner is to prefer an appeal against the order awarding compensation as provided in Section 30(1)(a) of the Act.
8. Though this Court can exercise its extraordinary/supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in such matters, I decline to entertain the Writ Petition in view of the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court cited supra, which has held the field for more than fifteen years by now. The principle of ‘stare decisis’ has been evolved for maintaining judicial decorum, propriety, discipline and also for not unsettling well settled law by each individual view unless it is overruled by higher Court or a larger Bench. The Single Judge of the High Court is bound to accept as correct, the Judgments of the Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction of Division Benches and of Full Benches of this Court and of the Supreme Court. The principles of ‘stare decisis’ and ‘reference’ are not contrary but complementary to each other. Taking recourse to the doctrine of ‘stare decisis’ would be an imperative necessity, so to avoid uncertainty and confusion, since the basic feature of law is its certainty and in the event of any departure therefrom, the society would be in utter confusion and the resultant effect of which would be legal anarchy and judicial indiscipline - a situation which always ought to be avoided. It is true that the doctrine has no statutory sanction but it is a rule of convenience, expediency, prudency and above all the public policy. It is to be observed in its observance rather than in its breach to serve the people and subserve the ends of justice.
9. Where the Courts follow their own Judgments, they do so on the ground of judicial comity. The Judgment in Praveen Industries cited supra is followed in number of cases for fifteen long years in this State. Added to it, the petitioner is entitled to raise all the grounds urged in this Writ Petition before the Appellate Court under Section 30 of the Act. Consequently, this Court deems it just and proper to apply the Principles of ‘Stare Decisis’ by following the dictum laid down in the decision cited supra which has held the field for more than fifteen years by now. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I hold that though the petitioner is certainly entitled to file an application for setting aside an ex-parte award by filing application under Order IX Rule -13 of C.P.C, before the Workmen's Compensation Authority, the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 are not made applicable to the proceedings under the Workmens Compensation Act under Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules and that the only recourse open to the petitioner in the Writ Petition is to prefer an appeal against the order awarding compensation as provided in Section 30(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order is made.
Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the award dated 31.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal in W.C 24/98 (24/2001:1992) before the Appellate Court by filing necessary application for condonation of delay, if it so chooses.
Comments