General Manager Vs. Chickabora

General Manager vs Chickabora

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jul 20, 1990

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/378686

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/378686
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K.A. Swami and ;N.D.V. Bhat, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 20, 1990
Case Number: M.F.A. No. 1345/1990
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 397: [R.B.Naik, J] Submission of B Report by the Police -Protest Petition - Acceptance of B Report - Challenge to Revision against Held, If the original complainant appears before the court and filed his protest petition to B report and opts to examin...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

General Manager

Respondent

Chickabora

Legal References

Reported In: I(1991)ACC187; 1991ACJ395; ILR1990KAR2933

Excerpt

- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 397: [r.b.naik, j] submission of b report by the police -protest petition - acceptance of b report - challenge to revision against held, if the original complainant appears before the court and filed his protest petition to b report and opts to examine himself and other witnesses in support of his case, the legal recourse that is left to the magistrate is to treat such protest petition as original complaint filed under section 200 cr.p.c., the b report, along with the material produced there in looses importance and such material would be of no value. the question of acceptance or rejection of b report at that stage would arise only in the event the complainant does not make out a prima facie case for issue of process. further, the magistrate, who takes cognizance of complaint when examined upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, in that process, there should be no assistance to the complainant or his witnesses fro any third source and it is the magistrate alone who shall examine the complainant and his witnesses without the assistance of either prosecutor or any counsel. on facts, held, on filing of protest petition, the contents of the protest petition and the sworn statement made before the magistrate by the complainant and his witnesses would alone form integral part of the complaint and the magistrate will have to proceed as provided under chapter-xv of the cr.p.c., order of magistrate was set aside and matter remitted back to the magistrate to proceed with the case from the stage of filing of protest petition and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law......3. it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the commissioner, apart from deciding the matter as a quasi-judicial authority, he also discharge several other functions under the provisions of the act which will have a bearing on the satisfaction of the award; that in the event he disobeys the directions issued by this court, it would become difficult to hold him liable for the act of disobedience to the order of this court. it is also brought to our notice that in c.c.c. no. 132/1990 filed by the very appellant against the commissioner for acting in disobedience to the order of this court passed in m.f.a. no. 1912/1989, on november 6, 1989, the contempt of court petition was dismissed holding that the commissioner for workmen's compensation was not made a party either to the appeal or to the interlocutory application. therefore, it is submitted that the commissioner is at least a proper party 'if not a necessary party' to the appeal. 4. on principle, it is not possible to uphold the contention. the commissioner for workmen's compensation decides the claim as a tribunal. he performs the role of a court. he exercises the powers of a civil court as section 23 of the act empowers him to exercise all the powers of a civil court for the purpose of recording evidence. he is also deemed to be a civil court for all the purpose of section 195 and chapter xxxv of the code of criminal procedure. as a judge or a court cannot be party to the cause, inasmuch as there cannot be a lis between a court and a party to the proceeding, the commissioner does not become either a necessary or a proper party to the appeal unless allegations are made against the commissioner in the appeal which require his presence before the court to explain the same. for effective and a complete and final adjudication of the appeal, the presence of the commissioner is not necessary because he has no personal right or interest in the subject matter of the appeal. he is also in no way interest or.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.A. Swami, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya, on June 13, 1990 in Case No. LOM/WCA/CR8/89-90 awarding certain amount of compensation to respondent-1. The appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

2. The appellant has impleaded the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner') as respondent-2. The Officer has raised and objection that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya, is neither a necessary nor a proper party, therefore, he be deleted.

3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Commissioner, apart from deciding the matter as a quasi-judicial authority, he also discharge several other functions under the provisions of the Act which will have a bearing on the satisfaction of the award; that in the event he disobeys the directions issued by this Court, it would become difficult to hold him liable for the act of disobedience to the order of this Court. It is also brought to our notice that in C.C.C. No. 132/1990 filed by the very appellant against the Commissioner for acting in disobedience to the order of this Court passed in M.F.A. No. 1912/1989, on November 6, 1989, the Contempt of Court Petition was dismissed holding that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was not made a party either to the appeal or to the interlocutory application. Therefore, it is submitted that the Commissioner is at least a proper party 'if not a necessary party' to the appeal.

4. On principle, it is not possible to uphold the contention. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation decides the claim as a Tribunal. He performs the role of a Court. He exercises the powers of a Civil Court as Section 23 of the Act empowers him to exercise all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of recording evidence. He is also deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a Judge or a Court cannot be party to the cause, inasmuch as there cannot be a lis between a Court and a party to the proceeding, the Commissioner does not become either a necessary or a proper party to the appeal unless allegations are made against the Commissioner in the appeal which require his presence before the Court to explain the same. For effective and a complete and final adjudication of the appeal, the presence of the Commissioner is not necessary because he has no personal right or interest in the subject matter of the appeal. He is also in no way interest or connected with the relief sought in the appeal against the respondents to the appeal. He has only decided the claim as any other Court or Tribunal does. Therefore, in the absence of any allegations made against him in the appeal, the Commissioner cannot even be held to become proper party to the appeal. Any order passed by the appeal preferred against the award passed in the appeal preferred against the award passed by the Commissioner, whether he is a party to the appeal or not, he is bound to carry it out and comply with same as he - the Commissioner - becomes a Court subordinate to this Court and he is liable to carry out the directions or orders - Whether interim or final - passed in the appeal just as any other Court subordinate to this Court carries out. The fact that the Commissioner is not a party to the appeal does not in any way absolve him from the obligation to carry out the orders and directions. He is also not absolved from the liability for any act of his, commission or omission, amounting to disobedience to the order of this Court. If it is proved that he has wilfully acted in disobedience to the order, in spite of the fact that the order of this Court was brought to his notice he is liable to be dealt with for contempt of this Court.

5. In this appeal there are no allegations made against the petitioner. Thereafter, we are of the view that the Commissioner need not be made a party to this appeal. He cannot be held to be either a proper or a necessary party to the appeal. Hence the office objection is upheld. Respondent No. 2 be deleted.

6. A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya, as it is submitted that he has been arbitrarily executing the orders in spite of the interim orders passed by this Court. He shall note this for his future guidance.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1990 Same Parties General Manager vs Chickabora Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge K.A. Swami and ;N.D.V. Bhat, JJ.

Labour and Industrial