JUDGMENT
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.
(1) This appeal is preferred by M / s. Green Roadways against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing a review application (R.A.No. I of 1988 in Fao 85/1985 dated January 25,1989). The review application was filed on behalf of the Union of India and the Election Commission of India (respondents : 3 and 4 herein) seeking review of an earlier order dated October 27,1987 directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 22,680.00 towards the compensation, Rs. 10,000.00 towards the penalty under Section 4A(3), interest @ 6% p.a. from May 23, 1980 till the date of payment and at Rs. 892.73 per month half monthly wages for the period for which the workman was in hospital and a sum of Rs. 500.00 as costs and Rs. 1,000.00as costs in the appeal.
(2) The review application was allowed under the impugned order by the learned Single Judge and the appellant M/s.Green Roadways were directed to pay the first respondent the workman the sum of Rs. 22,680.00 towards compensation; Rs. 10,000.00 towards penalty under Section 4A(3), interest 6% from May 23, 1980 till the date of payment to the workman and at Rs. 892.73 as half monthly wages for the period for which the workman was in hospital and Rs. 500.00 and Rs. 1,000.00- as costs as aforesaid stated. It is this order dated January 25,1989 making the appellant liable and exonerating respondents 3 and 4 from liability that this appeal has been preferred.
(3) We shall refer to the circumstances under which the first order dated October 27,1987 (which was later reviewed) was passed.
(4) The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Delhi dated April 1, 1985. M/s. Green Roadways is a firm carrying on business of goods transportation. In May, 1980 the Election Commissioner and the Union of India needed trucks for transportation of Presiding Officers, Polling Officers and other staff, furniture, ballot boxes etc. to different polling booths. The appellant M/s. Green Roadways for the aforesaid purpose hired truck No. Rsy 7719 from its owner Moti Ram, who was a partner of M/s. Green Roadways.The driver was under the employment of the said roadways. The truck left the office of the Election Commissioner, Delhi for Udaipur on May 23,1980 for the purpose of elections and met with an accident, in which Nirmal Singh, driver was injured. He filed the claim petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act at Delhi before the Commissioner.
(5) The action took place in Rajasthan, the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act transferred the petition initially to the Commissioner at Udaipur. According to the appellant, this was done without the sanction of the Delhi Administration, but later on it appears that the Commissioner recalled the said reference to himself and that is how the matter came to be heard at Delhi. Of course the appellant contends that at the time it was recalled the permission of the Government of Rajasthan was not obtained.
(6) Be that as it may, ultimately the Commissioner in Delhi dealt with the matter and after condoning the delay of about six months in the filing of the claim petition he passed an award on April 1, 1985 disposing of the claim petition. Even though he found that the Union of India and Election Commissioner were served and they preferred to remain ex-parte, he passed the award only against Green Roadways and not against the Union of India nor against the Election Commission.
(7) Against the said award, appeal was preferred by M/s. Green Roadways being Fao 85 of 1985. On October 27, 1987 the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside, the claim petition was dismissed as against M/s. Green Roadways and the award was made against Election Commissioner and the Union of India. Thereafter, the Union of India and the Election Commissioner filed the review petition in question contending that the appellant had given up Union of India and the Election Commissioner during the course of the Fao and this was not brought to the notice of the Court when the appeal was allowed.
(8) The review application was allowed by the learned Single Judge on January 25, 1989, which is under appeal by the appellants M/s. Green Roadways. By that judgment the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Union of India and Election Commissioner, respondents 3 and 4 respectively were given up during the course of the appeal. There was also an admission on the part of M/s. Green Roadways that the workman was under the employment of that company. On these findings the review application was allowed and the award as passed by the Commissioner at Delhi making M/s. Green Roadways Along with liability, was restored.
(9) Aggrieved by this order passed in the review application this Lpa has been preferred by M/s. Green Roadways. Learned Counsel for the appellants firstly contends that the award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act at Delhi is a void award inasmuch as the accident occurred in Rajasthan and the Commissioner at Rajasthan ought to have tried this case. The second contention of the learned Counsel is that the Union of India and the Election Commissioner were not given up in the F.A.O. as they were only given up in the miscellaneous application (C.M.No. 1808 of 1985). The third contention of the learned Counsel is that the workman was not under the employment of the appellant.
(10) So far as the first contention regarding territorial jurisdiction is concerned, we do not find that any such point was raised either when the Fao was originally disposed of by the learned Single Judge on October 27,1987 or even when he passed the order in the review application on January 25, 1989. This case relates to the accident of 1980. After the case was instituted at Delhi and referred to Rajasthan and again called back and thereafter tried in Delhi no objection was raised at any point of time that the concerned Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction. In any event,now after the lapse of 15 years from the date of accident, we think it futile to go into this question of territorial jurisdiction which would, if accepted, drive the workman to the Commissioner in Rajasthan and result in refund of amount already withdrawn by the workman and further delay. At this stage we do not think it proper to permit this new point to be raised for the first time in the appeal. We, therefore, reject the first contention.
(11) The second contention is that the Union of India and the Election Commissioner were given up by the appellant only in the miscellaneous application. The said contention again cannot be accepted. The order in Cm No. 1808 of 1985 reads as follows : “Copy of the appeal would be given to learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. Both the Counsels agree that respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary parties and need not be served. Fresh notice to respondent legal representative for 10.9.1985. Correct address may be filed. Interim order to continue.”
(12) This order was interpreted by the learned Single Judge as an order made by the Court accepting the suggestion of the Counsel that the Union of India and Election Commissioner were not necessary parties to the appeal and it was on that basis that the Court considered them to be not necessary parties in the miscellaneous application. We are of the view that this interpretation put in by the learned Single Judge in the said order is correct. We are also of the view that on August 2, 1985 Counsel given up respondents 3 and 4 in the appeal that was why it was suggested that notice need not be given to the said respondents in the miscellaneous application. We are not prepared to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the said respondents were given up only for the purpose of the miscellaneous application. Therefore this contention is also rejected.
(13) The third contention is that the claimant was not under the employment of the appellant. This contention is totally without force. The order under review clearly admits that the workman was under the employment of the appellant.This is how the Jearned Single Judge recorded admission:”It is also an admission of the fact that the workman in question was in the employment of the appellant at the relevant time and was, therefore, liable to pay the compensation to the workman”. We cannot now permit a contention that there was no such admission before the learned Single Judge. It is well settled law and also practice of this Court that if parties want to contest any fact mentioned in a judgment as to what happened in Court, the proper procedure is to file a review application and not an appeal. Therefore, we proceed on the basis that the appellant had admitted before the learned Single Judge that the workman was under its employment. The third contention is also rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The security bond which the respondent has offered during the pendency of the Lpa for withdrawal of the amount will stands cancelled as from today. Vikas Certificates deposited by the Workman will also be given back to him by the registry. Whatever balance amount that remains payable to the workman as decreed will be paid to the respondent within two months from today.