Allahabad High Court
Shravan Pal Singh vs Pooran Nath Goswami on 20 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997ACJ901, [1996(74)FLR1853], (1998)IIILLJ963ALL
JUDGMENT
B.K. Roy and N.B. Asthana, JJ.
1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the following order dated November 20, 1995 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, Di strict Nainital passed on an application dated November 15, 1995 filed by the appellant for recalling the ex-parte order dated February 16, 1994:
"Rejected because R.C. already issued on January 12, 1995"
2. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that this appeal has been filed in view of an order dated January 12, 1996 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in appellant's Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 1464 of 1996, as contained in Annexure-2, the relevant part of which runs as follows :
"Heard counsel for the petitioner.
Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, I do not find it a fit case for interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that this petition has been filed challenging the order rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner. In my opinion, on this basis the writ petition cannot be entertained as on the appellate side, this Court may be entitled to look into the facts and circumstances in which the order was passed ex-parte against the petitioner. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition is rejected.
January 12, 1996 Sd/-R.R.K.Trivedi"
3. Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, under which this appeal has been filed, runs as follows :
"30. Appeals.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4;
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 ; or
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees:
Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties :
Provided further that no appeal by an employer under Clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.
(2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this Section shall be sixty days.
(3) The provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, shall be applicable to appeals under this Section."
4. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions leaves no manner of doubt that the Legislature has not provided appeal under the aforementioned provisions against an order rejecting an application for recall. It is settled law by now through a catena of decisions that appeal and/or revision are creation of statute and no one has got an inherent right to prefer an appeal, (See Ohene Moore v. Akesseh Tayee AIR 1935 PC 5; Rangoon Botatoung Company Ltd. v. The Collector Rangoon 1912 39 Indian Appeal 197 (Privy Council); Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Ors. AIR. 1957 SC 540 ; Soorajmull Nagarmull v. State of WestBengal AIR 1963 SC 393; Rani Manprasad Gordhandas and Ors. v. Gopichand Shering Gutpa and Ors. 1973 AIR SC 566; Smt. GangaBai v. Vijai Kumar and Ors. 1974 AIR SC 1126 ; Special Military Estate Officer V. Munivenkataramia and Ors. 1990 AIR SC 499; M. Rannarain Pvt. Limited and Anr. v. The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. 1983 AIR SC 786 ; D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal 1988 (3) SCC 26; Vinay Prakash D. Mehta and Ors. v. Collector of Customs 1988 4 SCC 402 (Preventive) Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh and Anr. 1992 Supp 1 SCC 191.
5. In view of the fact that no appeal lay under the aforementioned provision against the impugned order we have no option but to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant had also contended that this appeal has been filed pursuant to the observations made in the writ petition. In view of the conclusions which we have arrived at we do not want to make any comment in this regard and it will be for the appellant to take steps for redressal of his grievance which he may consider appropriate and available in accordance with law.