Abdul Majid vs Union of India (UOI)

P.C. Pathak, J.—This appeal is by a workman u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dt. 31-10-80 passed by the Commissioner for workmen''s compensation, Jabalpur, in case No. 4 of 80 Misc. NF whereby he declared to review the earlier order passed by him on 26-7-75.

The appellant was a fireman grade-I working under the respondent since 1950. During the course of employment, he alleged that he suffered injuries in 1958, 1962 and lastly in 1970. He filed a claim before the Commissions of workmen''s compensation. That petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation It appears that thereafter, the appellant agitated his grievances u/s 33G of the Industrial Disputes Act and having failed there, he approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Industrial Court. Since the appellant thought that there was some favourable observations in the order passed by the High Court, he filed a review petition before the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed that petition holding that he has no such power. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has come up in the present appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that Under Rule 41 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, certain provisions of the CPC have been made applicable. Developing his argument further, he stated that power of review is also inherent in every court including the Commissioner for workmen. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no such power of review and, therefore, the application was rightly dismissed.

Having given my anxious consideration, I think that there is sufficient force in the submission made by learned Counsel for the respondent. Powers of review cannot readily be inferred as inherent in any court unless the statute specifically confer such powers. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not bring to my notice any provisions of law or any earlier decision which may lay down that the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen''s Compensation Act enjoins of review. This apart, the earlier petition was dismissed as barred by time on 26-7-1975. The purported review application was filed in 1980. Therefore, it was hopelessly barred by limitation as well.

In view of the foregoing discussion the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed without there being any order as co costs. Before parting with this order, I hope that railway authorities would consider at departmental level grievances of the appellant and it is further hoped that whatever legitimately possible could be offered to him.