# Ajay Singh v. Ms. Paradise Packers

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1756
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-04
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Abhai Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-singh-v-ms-paradise-packers-43818
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Smt. Archana Singh

Held -

Procedural Orders: The Court condones a delay of 419 days in filing the appeal, noting that the explanation
provided was satisfactory. The appeal is admitted and, by agreement of both parties, taken up for immediate
disposal as it involves a pure legal issue.

Factual Background: The appellant, Ajay Singh, was a press operator who suffered a hand injury (loss of
thumb and broken fingers) in 2009 while cleaning a machine. He filed a claim for compensation after the
employer, M/s Paradise Packers, denied he was their employee.

Initial Award: On March 23, 2012, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner ruled in favor of the
appellant, confirming the employment relationship and the injury occurred during work. He awarded a
compensation of ₹4,07,836.
5 All. Ajay Singh Vs Ms. Paradise Packers

1757
The Review Application: Shortly after the award, the employer filed a "review application." On July 20,
2012, the Commissioner allowed this application, effectively reconsidering the evidence and reversing the
earlier decision. This specific order is the subject of the present appeal.

Appellant's Legal Contention: The appellant argued that the Employees' Compensation Act does not grant
the Commissioner the power of "Review." While an authority has an inherent power to "Recall" an order
obtained by fraud or passed ex-parte, they cannot review a case on its merits.

Employer's Defense: The employer's counsel argued that the Commissioner originally misread the
attendance register. He claimed the review corrected an error of evidence and served the interest of
"substantial justice."

Statutory Analysis: The Court examined Sections 3, 4, 19, and 20 of the Act. It noted that while the
Commissioner has certain powers of a Civil Court (like summoning witnesses), the Act does not specifically
incorporate Order 47 of the CPC (Power of Review).

Finding on Jurisdiction: The Court held that the power of review is a "creation of statute." Since the Act
does not provide this power, the Commissioner acted without jurisdiction. Reviewing evidence to reach a
different conclusion is legally distinct from "recalling" an order due to fraud.

Final Decision: The High Court quashed the Commissioner's order dated July 20, 2012, for want of
jurisdiction. However, it clarified that the employer still maintains the right to challenge the original award by
filing a proper appeal under Section 30 (referred to as Section 13 in the text) of the Act.

List of Citations:

United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajendra Singh, 2000 (11) 202, Durghatna
Muawaja Patrika.
Smt. Rita vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 2880 of 2012.

## Text

1756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 319 Cr.P.C. allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an
accused in a case before it. Thus, the person against whom summons are issued in exercise of such
powers, has to necessarily not be an accused already facing trial. He can either be a person named
in Column 2 of the chargesheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. or a person whose name has been
disclosed in any material before the court that is to be considered for the purpose of trying the
offence, but not investigated. He has to be a person whose complicity may be indicated and
connected with the commission of the offence."

13. Hence, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgement passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, the present
criminal revision is dismissed.
-----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE ABHAI KUMAR, J.

Firat Appeal From Order Defective No.- 1760 Of 2013

Ajay Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Ms. Paradise Packers ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Shri Mohd. Yusuf

Counsel for the Respondent:
Smt. Archana Singh

Held -

Procedural Orders: The Court condones a delay of 419 days in filing the appeal, noting that the explanation
provided was satisfactory. The appeal is admitted and, by agreement of both parties, taken up for immediate
disposal as it involves a pure legal issue.

Factual Background: The appellant, Ajay Singh, was a press operator who suffered a hand injury (loss of
thumb and broken fingers) in 2009 while cleaning a machine. He filed a claim for compensation after the
employer, M/s Paradise Packers, denied he was their employee.

Initial Award: On March 23, 2012, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner ruled in favor of the
appellant, confirming the employment relationship and the injury occurred during work. He awarded a
compensation of ₹4,07,836.
5 All. Ajay Singh Vs Ms. Paradise Packers

1757
The Review Application: Shortly after the award, the employer filed a "review application." On July 20,
2012, the Commissioner allowed this application, effectively reconsidering the evidence and reversing the
earlier decision. This specific order is the subject of the present appeal.

Appellant's Legal Contention: The appellant argued that the Employees' Compensation Act does not grant
the Commissioner the power of "Review." While an authority has an inherent power to "Recall" an order
obtained by fraud or passed ex-parte, they cannot review a case on its merits.

Employer's Defense: The employer's counsel argued that the Commissioner originally misread the
attendance register. He claimed the review corrected an error of evidence and served the interest of
"substantial justice."

Statutory Analysis: The Court examined Sections 3, 4, 19, and 20 of the Act. It noted that while the
Commissioner has certain powers of a Civil Court (like summoning witnesses), the Act does not specifically
incorporate Order 47 of the CPC (Power of Review).

Finding on Jurisdiction: The Court held that the power of review is a "creation of statute." Since the Act
does not provide this power, the Commissioner acted without jurisdiction. Reviewing evidence to reach a
different conclusion is legally distinct from "recalling" an order due to fraud.

Final Decision: The High Court quashed the Commissioner's order dated July 20, 2012, for want of
jurisdiction. However, it clarified that the employer still maintains the right to challenge the original award by
filing a proper appeal under Section 30 (referred to as Section 13 in the text) of the Act.

List of Citations:

United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajendra Singh, 2000 (11) 202, Durghatna
Muawaja Patrika.
Smt. Rita vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 2880 of 2012.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
&
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.)

1. Despite time being granted no objections have been filed to the application filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. Delay of 419 days in filing the present appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of
the Court.

3. Delay is condoned.

4. Appeal is treated to be within time.

5. Office to allot regular number of the appeal.
1758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Counsel for the parties agreed that the present appeal may be disposed of at this stage
itself, specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today by the Court. As also in view of
the fact that the appeal is to be decided on a pure legal issue.

7. Facts in short leading to the appeal are as follows:-

8. Ajay Singh the appellant before us claims that he was employed as press operator with
M/s Paradise Packers, Baba Laldas Road, Gandhi Colony, Saharanpur, for last more than five years,
prior to the alleged accident. It was his case that on 10.06.2009 during the course of his
employment, when he was cleaning the press machine in the factory premises of the respondent
employer, one co-worker namely Sunil Kumar pressed the on button of the machine, as a result
whereof his thumb was cut and his left hand figures were broken.

9. The appellant after medical treatment requested the employer for payment of
compensation and on failure to receive the same he instated Workman Compensation Act Case No.
5 of 2010 claiming a compensation of Rs.5,37,600/- alongwith interest.

10. The claim was contested by the owner of the factory and among other it was submitted
that Ajay Singh was not in their employment.

11. Evidences was lead by the parties in support of their respective cases. The Workman
Compensation Commissioner, cum Deputy Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur, vide award dated
23.03.2012, held that the claimant was in employment of the respondent and that he had suffered
injuries during the course of employment, for which he was entitled to a compensation of
Rs.4,07,836/-. This award was made on 19.05.2012 and was also published.

12. On 29.05.2012 a review application was filed on behalf of the employer, which
application came to be allowed by means of the order dated 20.07.2012. It is against this order
dated 20.07.2012 that the present appeal under Section 13 of the Employs Compensation Act has
been filed.

13. The basic ground pressed before us is that under the provision of the Employs
Workman Compensation Act, no power of review has been conferred upon the Employees
Compensation Commissioner, and therefore, the order is wholly without jurisdiction. It is explained
that an award could have been recalled by the Employees Workman Compensation Commissioner,
only if, it was proved that the award had been obtained by fraud or that the applicant had not been
afforded an opportunity to contest the matter. Such power of recall is inherent in every adjudicating
authority, for the said limited purpose only.

14. Sri Shri Prakesh Singh, learned counsel for the employer submits that there was an
error in the reading of the evidence, specifically the attendance register filed by the employee,
before Employes Workman Compensation Commissioner while making the award dated
5 All. Ajay Singh Vs Ms. Paradise Packers

1759
23.03.2012, and therefore, the review application has rightly been entertained. Substantial justice
has been done between the parties, and therefore, this Court may not interfere .

15. For the purposes of appreciating the controversy raised on behalf of the parties, we
have carefully gone through the provision of Workman Compensation Act, 1923, now titled as the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as Act 1923).

 Section 3 of the Act provides for employers liability for compensation, in the case
of injury, to the employee by accident, caused in the course of employment.

 Section 4 lays down the amount of compensation to be provided for each category
of the injury as also in the case of death to the employee concerned.

 Section 4-A provide for the due date of the payment of compensation and penalty
for default.
 Section 10 provides for a notice of the claim.

 Section 19 of the Act provide for reference for ascertaining the compensation and
the dispute being adjudicated by the Commissioner to be appointed under Section 20 of the same
Act.

16. So far as the procedure before the Commissioner is concerned, it has been provided that
he shall have all the powers of the civil court provided for under the code of civil procedure, for the
purposes of taking evidence on oath for enforcing the attendance of witnesses, production of
document and object.

 Section 24 provide for the appearance of the parties.

 Section 25 provides for the method of recording of evidences.

17. Against the order of the Commissioner, an appeal under Section 13 has been provided
before the Hon'ble High Court.

18. We may record that the Act 1929 does not confer any specific power of review, upon
the Commissioner.

19. Provision of Order 47 have not been made applicable in respect of the proceeding
under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, we have no hesitation to record that
from the Scheme of the Act it can be safely inferred that the Commissioner has not been conferred
any power of review under the Act. It is settled law that the power of review is a creation of statue
and in absence thereof no authority exercising quasi judicial power can review its earlier order.
1760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20. We may further record that the Tribunal for the purposes of making the impugned order
has relied upon the judgement in the case of United India Company Limited Vs. Rejendra
Singh, reported in 2000 (11) 202, Durghatna Muawaja Patrika, as well as upon the order of the
High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2880 of 2012 (Smt. Rita Vs. State of U.P.). The paragraph
of the judgement which have been so having relied upon by the Tribunal only confer a power, to
recall an order which has been made in absence of a party and in cases where an order has been
obtained by fraud. It is settled law that every authority has inherent power to recall an order which
has been obtained by fraud. Similarly every authority has a right to recall an order which has been
made ex-parte on an proper ground being made out for the purpose. But the aforesaid powers
cannot be extended to mean that the Commissioner had a power of review.

21. We may further record that even if, it is presumed that the Commissioner could have
reviewed the order, then to such review could have done, if there had been an error apparent on the
face of the record. The power of review cannot be extended so as to re appreciable the entire
evidence afresh and to come on a different conclusion on the basis of the same evidence which was
considered earlier. The legal principle in that regards, with regard to the scope of power of review
has also been settled by the Apex Court.

22. For both the aforesaid reasons, we are more than satisfied that the order made by the
Commissioner dated 20.07.2012, cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed for want of
jurisdiction.

23. We however, clarify that this order shall not affect the rights of the employer to file an
appeal under Section 13 of Act 1923 against the original award.

24. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is allowed.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-III, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 2045 Of 1983

Nathoo Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Shri Rahul Mishra Amicus Cureia, Shri Nanhe Lal Tripathi