High Court's Power Of Review Not Circumscribed By Provisions Of Employees' Compensation Act: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that the High Court is not a creature of a statute like Employee's Compensation Act but it is a creature of the Constitution and hence the limitations of jurisdiction as contained in the Act of 1923 are not applicable to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar was hearing a plea ...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that the High Court is not a creature of a statute like Employee's Compensation Act but it is a creature of the Constitution and hence the limitations of jurisdiction as contained in the Act of 1923 are not applicable to the jurisdiction of the High Court.
The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar was hearing a plea review petition in terms of which the petitioners-appellants sought review of judgment and order passed by this Court in whereby the appeal filed by the appellants-review petitioners against the Award of the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu had been allowed and while doing so, the rate of interest on the awarded sum had been reduced from 12% per annum to 6% per annum.
The primary contention raised by the Review Petitioner was that as per the provisions contained in Section 4A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 the claimants-review petitioners are entitled to statutory interest @ 12% per annum and therefore the appellate Court has passed the impugned order without considering the provisions contained in Section 4A of the Act of 1923, which amounts to an error apparent on the face of record.
Contesting the petition the respondent-insurance Company contended that in terms of provisions contained in the Act of 1923, the appellate Court does not have any power to review its own orders. Respondent counsel further contended that even otherwise, the contentions raised by the counsel for the review petitioners cannot be decided in review jurisdiction though the same may offer grounds of challenge before a higher forum.
Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Dhar observed that this Court, being a constitutional Court, is a Court of record, as such, it has the authority to recall its own orders. The said power is inherent in this Court by virtue of the fact of being a superior court of record.
"It is a well settled proposition of law that being a Court of record, the High Court is vested with powers to proceed under Article 226 of Constitution of India itself and to review a judgment if it is found that there was any material suppression or the Court was not right in passing a verdict. The High Court is not a creature of a statute like Employee's Compensation Act but it is a creature of the Constitution. Hence, the limitations of jurisdiction as contained in the Act of 1923 are not applicable to the jurisdiction of the High Court. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurer that the power of this Court to review its own order are circumscribed by the provisions contained in the Act of 1923 is a specious argument, which deserves to rejected", the bench recorded.
While dealing with the other contention of the Review Petitioner that while passing impugned judgment/order this Court did not deal with the contention of the appellants-review petitioners that the deceased was earning wages of Rs.6,000/- per month and instead his wages have been assessed as Rs.4,000/- per month, Justice Dhar observed that the income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.4,000/- per month by the ALC because of the notification issued by the Central Government in terms of Sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1923, as was applicable at the relevant time and therefore, the ALC had rightly taken income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. Thus, no fault can be found with the award passed by the ALC in this regard and rightly this Court has not interfered with this aspect of the matter while passing the order under review, the bench maintained.
Deliberating on the last contention of the Review Petitioner that this Court, in appeal while allowing the contention of appellants/review petitioners that they are entitled to interest from the date of injury reduced the rate of interest to 6% without assigning any reason, the bench acknowledged that Section 4A(3) of the Act of 1923 clearly provides that the interest has to be payable @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any Scheduled Bank. So the minimum statutory rate of interest, which is payable on compensation due to the claimants is 12% per annum and hence it seems that the provisions contained in Section 4A(3) of the Act of 1923 have escaped the notice of this Court, while passing the impugned judgment/order, the bench recorded.
Accordingly the review petition is partly allowed and judgment and order passed by this court is reviewed to the extent that instead of interest @ 6% per annum, the review petitioners/claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date from which the same has been awarded vide the judgment under review, the bench concluded.
Case Title : Geeta Devi & Ors Vs M/s Somnath Naragmal & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 157