JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. The only question which arises for adjudication in this. Letters Patent Appeal is whether the
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner had
the jurisdiction to review the order dated March
31, 1996 passed on the application filed by the
appellant for grant of compensation. 5
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that white he was employed with M/s.Krishna Paper and Board Mills, Pansara, Tehsil Jagadhari (Respondent No. 2) as a cutterman, the gear of the blade of the machine on which the appellant was working suddenly got free and fell on his hands as a result of which thumbs and adjoining fingers of his both hands were cut and had to be amputated. The appellant applied for grant of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. After considering the evidence produced before him, the Respondent No. 1 held that the appellant was entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 56,000/-. The op-2 erative portion of the order dated March 31, 1986 passed by the Respondent No. 1 reads as under:
“The representative of the Assurance Co. 2 appeared and stated that the Krishna Paper Board Mills is insured with the New India Assurance Co. and the Company is prepared to pay the legal compensation to the applicant. Even then, the applicant appeared in the witness box and corroborated the averments made in the application and also produced medical disability assessment report (Exh.A. 1). This disability assessed by the Medical Authorities is 45% and the age of; the applicant as stated in the application is 20 years which was not denied by either of the respondents. The monthly wages stated in the application as Rs. 500/- P.M. were also not rebutted by either of the respon- dents. Accordingly as per provisions contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the amount of compensation is calculated as Rs. 56,000/- (fifty six thousand only), 50% of the wages multiplied by relevant factor i.e.224. Since the New India Assurance Co., Yamunanagar has committed to pay this amount to the applicant, the order is passed accordingly. The New India Assurance Co. be asked to deposit the amount with this Court immediately for disbursement to the claimant.
No order as to any other costs.”
3. After about 7 months, an application was submitted on behalf of New India Assurance Company for rectification of the order dated March 31, 1986. Vide his order dated November 25, 1986, the Respondent No. 1 accepted the application of the Insurance Company and reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 56,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- on the ground that as per the evidence of the doctor, the workman was entitled to only Rs. 25,200/-by way of compensation.
4. The writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that the counsel appearing for the petitioner had not objected to the acceptance of the application filed by the Insurance Company.
5. Although none has appeared on behalf of either of the parties, we do not consider it appropriate to adjourn the hearing of the appeal because it is already more than 7 years old.
6. The only provision which is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the question raised in the appeal is Rule 32 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, 1924. The same reads as under:
“32. Judgment – (1) The Commissioner, in passing orders, shall record concisely a judgment, his finding on each of the issues framed and his reasons for such finding.
(2) 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 a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission.”
7. A careful reading of the rule, quoted above shows that after the pronouncement of judgment, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner cannot modify or amend the order though he can correct the clerical and arithmetical mistakes arising out of the accidental slip or omission. However, what the respondent No. 1 has done in this case is that he has substantially revised the order passed by him on March 31, 1986 on the application filed by the Respondent No. 3. The impugned order does not speak of correction of clerical or arithmetical error but it speaks of the so-called error committed in the substantive part of the order dated March 31, 1986 and after reviewing that order, the Respondent No. l reduced the amount of compensation payable to the appellant from Rs. 56,000/- to Rs. 25,200/-. This, in our opinion, the Respondent No. 1 could not have done in view of the express provision contained in Rule 32 of the Rules. Thereafter, the impugned order is liable to be declared void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
8. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is clearly erroneous in law. The learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition on the wholly untenable ground namely, that the counsel for the petitioner had not objected to the passing of the order dated November 25, 1986. We cannot approve the preposition that the failure of the counsel to raise objection on a jurisdiction of issue could estop an aggrieved party from seeking invalidation of an order which may be clearly without jurisdiction. . ,
9. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The order dated September 22, 1989 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the order dated November ,25, 1986 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is quashed. Simultaneously, we restore the order dated March 31, 1986 passed by the said Respondent and direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to pay compensation to the appellant in terms of the order dated March 31, 1986 if it has already not been paid.