Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.54 seconds)Section 8 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Section 6 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
K.V. Aboo vs Commissioner For Workmen'S ... on 24 February, 1977
19. The learned Counsel for the respondent (employer), as already stated above, submitted that the principles of inherent power to remedy in justice applies to quasi-judicial authority also and submitted that the procedure is permissible which is not specifically prohibited and the learned Counsel relied, on principles, on the case of K.V. Aboo v. The Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Anr. (supra). In that case the question was whether some body could be added to the proceeding. In the circumstances of that case it was held that while the provision of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code as such was not made specifically applicable to the proceeding under Workmen's Compensations Act and the Rules framed thereunder, yet there was no prohibition in the Act or the Rule framed thereunder that a person cannot be brought on the record subsequent to the filing of the application. This case is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the presesent case and is distinguishable. This case was not a case of review. The learned Judge, in that case, as already slated above, held that, in law, all procedure is permissible which is not specifically prohibited and with this ratio held that the provision of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code could be made applicable to the proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act even though that was not specifically mentioned in Section 23 of the Act. With great respect to the learned Judge, I do not agree to the view taken by him. The Workmen's Compensation Act is an Act complete by itself, it specifically mentions as to which of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable in the proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act. This clearly shows that all other provisions which are not specifically mentioned in Section 23 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Bajrang Rai And Ors. vs Ismail Mian And Ors. on 12 May, 1977
20. I have already held above that Section 151, CPC is not mentioned in Section 23 and thus the power Under Section 151, CPC could not be exercised by the Commissioner, muchless to review his earlier judgment which was erroneous in law, i.e. not in accordance with law. This case of Bajrang Rai and Ors. v. Ismail Mian and Ors. (supra) does not deal with the case under Workmen's Compensation Act and thus the principle decided in that case is on the facts of that particular case.
The Newabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. And ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 September, 1975
Then remains the case of Newabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. (supra). This case deals with a case under Essential Commodities Act. This case does not deal even with the scope of Section 151, Cr.PC This case, it is apparent, has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent (employer) under a total misconception. Thus neither of the three cases, referred to above, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent (employer) support the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent.