ORDER
1. The present revision petition arises from the order dated 31-10-1998 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, D.K., Sub-Division, Mangalore on I.A. No. Miscellaneous/CR-1/98 in No. WCA/CR-2/92-F. As per office report this CRP is misconceived as under Section 115 of the CPC, the revision lies from the order of the subordinate Civil Court. Section 3 of the CPC defines and provides what are the Courts subordinate for the purpose of the CPC and under the Code to High Court or District Court. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation does not come within the purview of the Court for the purpose of Code of Civil Procedure as it is not mentioned therein. Secondly, Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is not a Court i.e., Civil Court, it is only a Tribunal under the Act. My this view finds support from Section 23 of the Act itself. Section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act reads as under:
“23. Power and procedure of Commissioners.–The Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of taking evidence on oath (which such Commissioner is hereby empowered to impose) and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects (and the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a Civil Court, for all the purposes of Section 195, and of Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898) (5 of 1898)”.
2. Under this section the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation has been conferred the powers of Civil Court specifically for limited purpose of taking evidence on oath and for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and materials. Had the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner being a Civil Court under CPC, there would have been no need to make such a provision as has been made under Section 23 of the Act, because if it would have been a Civil Court as then by virtue of its being a Civil Court it could have exercised these powers. So this very clearly shows that the legislature intended the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner not to be a Civil Court and therefore there was a special provision made in Section 23 conferring such limited powers on Commissioners to take evidence on oath etc. Further, sub-section (2) of the Section 23 provides by legal fiction i.e. deeming clause that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the limited purposes i.e., of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of Criminal Procedure Code.
3. By application of legal fiction or deeming clause a state of affairs or a thing which required to be deemed is something which actual and real affairs of thing is not like that and as such it required to be taken and deemed to be by the legal fiction under deeming clause is to be taken as real only for the purpose for which it is required to be applied and to be deemed not beyond that purpose. Here legal fiction under deeming clause is limited in its application for the purpose indicated by user of expression “For the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of Criminal Procedure Code”. That as such for any other purpose such as Section 115 of the CPC, Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner cannot be deemed to be Civil Court. Thus considered in my opinion, the present revision under Section 115 is misconceived and is not maintainable. No doubt, Workmen’s Compensation Officer is an authority subordinate to High Court and this Court has got power of superintendence over Courts, authorities and Tribunals. The Workmen’s Compensation action, which may be Tribunal and in such case, if there is case on merits, no doubt applicant may have right to approach this Court under Article 227.
4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner prayed that he may be permitted to convert this revision in the writ under provision of Article 227 or may be given liberty to approach this Court under Article 226. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the Court under Article 227 by a proper petition and by making out the case for that. With these observations, the revision is dismissed, but it is always open to this Court to consider if the case is fit one for exercise of power under Article 227. Thus considered, office objection is maintained and the revision petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable keeping it open to petitioner to avail any remedy, if available.
5. Revision is as such dismissed.