Find a Lawyer

‑‑S.18‑‑Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), S.23‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.114‑‑Review‑‑Application of Civil Procedure Code to proceedings under Payment of Wages Act and Workmen's Compensation Act is only for limited purpose‑‑Provision of review in Civil Procedure Code, held, were not applicable before Authority under Acts IV of 1936 and VIII of 1923‑‑Order passed in review by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and Authority under Payment of Wages Act was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Messrs Ahmed Food Industries v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal 1974 P L C 225 rel.

Ch.Rashid Ahmed for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent No.1.

Khalid Dawood Pots for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 18th January, 1987.

The petitioner has challenged the order of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, dated 29‑9‑1986 on the sole ground that the order passed by the Authority was wholly without jurisdiction as the said Authority had no power to review its own order either under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act or under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. The admitted facts are as follows:‑

Workman Farzand Ali, who was employed with the petitioner died natural death on 1‑9‑1985. Respondent No.2 who claims to be the sister and the only surviving heir of the deceased, filed two separate applications before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for payment of group insurance and other legal dues of the deceased respectively on 12‑10‑1985. Both these applications were dismissed for non‑prosecution by the Authority on 19‑1‑1986. Thereafter, respondent No.2 applied for restoration of these applications but that applications were also dismissed for non‑prosecution on 12‑3‑1986. After dismissal of the restoration applications a second application for restoration of the restoration applications was filed, which too was dismissed on 13‑7‑1986. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 submitted a review application under section 114, C.P. C. which was accepted by the respondent No.1 and the case was ordered to be proceeded on merit.

Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that neither the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act nor the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had the power to review its own order as the two Acts namely, the Payment of Wages Act and the Workmen Compensation Act did not authorise respondent No.l to exercise such power. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand contended that as the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act as well as in proceedings arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, such Authorities can in an appropriate case exercise the power for review contained in section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is settled law that a power of review is a substantive right which must be conferred on the‑ Authority of the Court acting under a special statute by the same legislation. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that neither the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 nor the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 makes any provision for review of the order passed by the Authority. In the absence of provision in the above two Acts vesting jurisdiction in the Authority to review its own order it was not possible for the said Authority to review their own orders under the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to the provisions of section 18 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to contend that the Authority had the jurisdiction to review their own orders. I am afraid, the contention cannot be accepted. Both, section 18 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and section 23 of the Workmen's) Compensation Act, makes the provisions of C.P.C. applicable to the proceedings before the Authority concerned for a very limited purpose5l which are mentioned in those sections. The purposes for which the C. P. C. is applicable in proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act and Workmen's Compensation Act are limited to the taking of evidence on oath, for enforcing attendance of the witnesses and compelling production of documents before the Authority concerned. In view of this limited scope of the application of C. P. C. to the proceedings under the Payment of Wags Act and Workmen's Compensation Act I am of the view that the provisions of review contained in C. P. C. were not applicable before the Authority. If any reference is needed in this regard the case of Messrs Ahmed Food Industries v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal 1974 P L C 225 may be referred wherein it is explicitly held that the power of review is not a matter of mere procedure but is a question of jurisdiction and the same cannot be exercised unless expressly conferred on the Tribunal by the statute under which it is exercising power. I accordingly hold that the order, dated 29‑9‑1986 passed by the respondent No. 1 is an order without jurisdiction and lawful authority. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 expressed an apprehension that by virtue of order passed by me it may not be understood that the right of respondent No.2 to claim the above amount stands finally decided. No such implication arises from the above order and if respondent No.2 has any legal right to claim the above dues he is at liberty to establish the same in appropriate proceedings.

M.Y.H./H‑12/K.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.