JUDGMENT
R.L. Khurana, J.
1. The above noted first appeal and the cross-objections which have arisen out of the order dated August 29, 1985 of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ are being disposed of by this single judgment.
2. The facts of the present case in brief may be stated thus. The respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of deceased Lot Ram. They are hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimants’. Respondent No. 6 is the employer under whom the deceased Lot Ram was working as a tractor Driver. Appellant in F.A.O. No. 181 of 1985 is the Insurance Company with whom the truck of the
employer was insured.
3. The deceased Lot Ram on October 6, 1981 while under the employment of the employer as a tractor Driver died in the accident. The claimants approached the Commissioner under the Act for the grant of compensation. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner, the parties arrived at a compromise. By virtue of the said compromise, the claimants accepted the compensation of Rs. 10,000 from the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of their claim. Consequent upon such compromise, and after having received the amount of Rs. 10,000 through a bank draft, the claimants on June 12, 1984 gave their petition
for the grant of compensation. The Commissioner after recording satisfaction of the claim of the claimants, had dismissed the petition made by the claimants seeking compensation in respect of deceased Lot Ram.
4. On June 26, 1984, an application came to be made by the claimants to the Commissioner under the Act praying for the re-opening of the case and for the grant of full compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Commissioner, vide his order dated June 28, 1985 allowed the application made by the claimants reviewing his earlier order/dated June 12, 1984 dismissing the claim of the claimants as having been compromised. Upon such review, compensation payable to the claimants was assessed at Rs. 19,200 and after adjusting the amount of Rs. 10,000 already paid, Insurance Company was called upon to pay the balance amount of Rs. 9,200 within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice in this behalf. The said order dated June 28, 1985 was passed ex parte against the Insurance Company.
5. On July 17, 1985, an application was made by the Insurance Company before the Commissioner under the Act for setting aside the ex parte order. The said application was allowed and the ex parte order against the Insurance Company was set aside. The Commissioner under the Act after setting aside the ex parte order dated June 28, 1985, upon reconsideration of the whole case, allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,904 in favour of the claimants. After deducting the amount of Rs. 10,000 already paid, the Insurance Company was called upon, to pay the balance amount of Rs. 21,904 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
6. Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied
with the award of the Commissioner under the
Act dated August 29, 1985, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal before this Court
being F. A.O No. 181 of 1985. The claimants have
also approached this Court by way of cross-
objections being cross-objection No.28 of 1986
on the ground that the Commissioner had committed an error in allowing the adjustment of
Rs.10,000 paid to the claimants earlier and that
the Commissioner had acted with material irregu
larities in not allowing interest and penalty
admissible under Section 4 of the Act.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
8. At the very out set, it may be stated that the impugned order of the Commissioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
9. The accident in the present case had taken place on October 6, 1981, that is, before Schedule IV to the Act came to be amended. This Schedule came to be amended on and with effect from July 1, 1984. Therefore, while assessing compensation, the Commissioner could not have adopted the formula laid down in the amended Schedule. A Division Bench of this
Court in New India Assurance Company v. Malti Devi and Ors., F. A. O. No. 172 of 1989, decided on July 24, 1995, has held that in case of an accident taking place before the amendment of Schedule IV to the Act,
compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased workman is to be assessed in accordance with the unamended Schedule.
10. There is yet another aspect of the case. Admittedly, the claim petition filed by the claimants was disposed of on June 12, 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 June 12, 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. v. Union of India and Ors., C. W. P. No. 155 of 1986, decided on December 29, 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 Ors. v. 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.”
14. The impugned order dated August 29, 1985, of the Commissioner under the Act is, therefore, bad for want of jurisdiction to review his own orders.
15. As a result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being F. A. O. No. 181 of 1985 is allowed. The impugned order dated August 29, 1985 passed by the Commissioner under the Act is set aside.
16. In view of the fact that the impugned order dated August 29, 1985 has been set aside, the cross-objections filed by the claimants are dismissed.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.