@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. The petitioner and others filed application before the first respondent seeking compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act in connection with the injuries sustained by them in an accident. By an order at Annexure-A, dated 9-7-1996 the first respondent awarded compensation of Rs. 39,412-00 to the petitioner and Rs. 5,600-00 to the 2nd respondent-Basha. On the application made by the 2nd respondent that the compensation amount has been wrongly interchanged inasmuch as the compensation payable to him has been awarded to the petitioner and that the amount payable to the petitioner has been awarded to him, the first respondent, exercising the powers under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC, has changed the compensation amount as sought by the 2nd respondent under the impugned order at Annexure-B. This has resulted in reduction of the compensation amount of Rs. 39,412-00 to Rs. 5,600-00 to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said order.
2. The short question to be considered in this case is, whether the first respondent was justified in passing the impugned order at Annexure-B by interchanging the compensation amount among the petitioner and the 2nd respondent?
3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the first respondent, in the guise of making correction by exercising the power under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC has not only changed the compensation amount but the finding with regard to the percentage of disability sustained by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is also changed. This was totally impermissible.
4. Against the order of the first respondent, the aggrieved party can file appeal u/s 30(1)(a) of the Act. The 2nd respondent should have challenged the order at Annexure-A by filing appeal. That has not been done in the instant case.
5. The exercise of power by the first respondent under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC, was not available to him and the same is without the authority of law. The alleged corrections are not mere corrections made in the original order in respect of quantum of amount but the finding with regard to percentage of disablement of the two workmen have been interchanged. Such a thing should not have been done by the first respondent.
6. It is also seen from the impugned order that the same had been passed without notice and without hearing the petitioner. Hence, it is violative of principles of natural justice. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned order at Annexure-B cannot be sustained.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-B is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the aggrieved party to file appeal u/s 30 of the Act to work-out the rights.
If there is any delay in filing the appeal, it is open to file an application seeking condonation of the same and the Appellate Authority shall consider the same bearing in mind the pendency of this writ petition.
