Case Note & Summary
This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation who had rejected an application to set aside an exparte award. The petitioner, a party to the proceedings before the Commissioner, was proceeded against ex parte, resulting in an order dated 28 December 2001. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application to recall that order, but the Commissioner rejected it on 16 February 2005, holding that there is no provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Act or its Rules empowering him to set aside an exparte order. The core legal issue was whether the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, possesses the jurisdiction to set aside an exparte award. The petitioner argued that Rule 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation (Central) Rules, which incorporates the provisions of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, makes Order IX Rule 13 applicable and thus confers the power to set aside an ex parte order. Additionally, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606, to contend that every Tribunal has an inherent or incidental power to correct a procedural error, such as a wrongful ex parte order, ex debito justitiae. The Court examined the legal position and noted that Rule 41 clearly states that Order IX CPC shall apply to proceedings before the Commissioner insofar as they may be applicable. Order IX includes the procedure where a party is set ex parte and the remedy under Rule 13 to set aside such an order. The Court further referred to Grindlays Bank where the Supreme Court had distinguished between a procedural review (which is inherent to rectify an inadvertent error) and a review on merits (which requires a specific statutory power unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the record). It was held that every Court or Tribunal must be endowed with ancillary or incidental powers necessary to discharge its functions effectively and to do justice between the parties. In light of Rule 41 and the ratio in Grindlays Bank, the High Court concluded that the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act undoubtedly possesses the power to set aside an exparte order provided sufficient cause is shown. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16 February 2005 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner with a direction to hear the parties afresh and dispose of the matter according to law within four months. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Workmen’s Compensation - Power to Set Aside Exparte Order - Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, Rule 41 of Central Rules - Rule 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation (Central) Rules incorporates the provisions of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby making Order 9 Rule 13 applicable to proceedings before the Commissioner. The Commissioner thus has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an exparte order passed in proceedings under the Act. Held, the rejection of such an application on the ground of non-maintainability was erroneous and the order was set aside. (Paras 2-3, 5-6) B) Procedural Law - Inherent Power of Tribunal - Procedural Review vs. Review on Merits - Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 - The Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (AIR 1981 SC 606) drew a distinction between a procedural review which is inherent in every Court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension, and a review on merits which requires an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Applying this principle, the High Court held that the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act possesses the implicit power to recall an exparte order to prevent abuse of its process, without the need for an express statutory provision. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has jurisdiction to set aside an exparte award or order passed in proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?
Final Decision
Impugned order dated 16th February, 2005 set aside. Matter remanded to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation for fresh disposal according to law within four months. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has power to set aside exparte order under procedural review
- Rule 41 of Workmen’s Compensation (Central) Rules incorporates Order 9 CPC
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC applies to proceedings before Commissioner
- every Tribunal has inherent power to correct procedural defects ex debito justitiae
- Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal AIR 1981 SC 606 relied upon
