- (1.) BY Court. Heard the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal by the owner of the vehicle, is directed against the order dated 12.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen 'sCompensation, Ranchi in W.C. Misc. Case No. 2 of 2002, whereby he has rejected the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte Award passed in C.W.C. No. 30 of 2001. Admitted fact is that the appellant is the owner of Maruti Van bearing regis -tration no. JH -01A - 6069. The deceased was employed as a driver in the said Maruti Van. The Van was booked for 15 days to carry passengers from Ranchi to Dhanbad. On the way, the driver was murdered by the miscreants. The widow and the minor children preferred an application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Ranchi for grant of compensation, impleading the appellant owner of the vehicle and also the Insurance Company in the said application. The appellant appeared and filed written statement. However, he left pairvi in the case. The Commissioner after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant, proceeded to decide the case ex parte against him. Accordingly, an ex parte order was passed fixing the liability upon the owner of the vehicle for payment of compensation of Rs. 2,59,975/ -. The appellant thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside ex parte Award passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner after recording a finding that no sufficient cause is shown for non -appearance of the appellant in the case which was heard ex parte, rejected the application for setting aside the Award. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) AT the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents claimants raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal against the order refusing to set aside ex parte Award passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act. Learned counsel drawn our attention to *Rule 41 of the Jharkhand Workmen's Compensation Manual. Learned counsel also relied upon two decisions reported in 2006 A.C.J. 2558 and 2005(3) T.A.C. 195. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel. Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 reads as under: "41. Certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to apply. ''Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these Rules the following provi -sions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely, those contained in Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX; Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII; and Order XXIII, Rules 1 and 2, shall apply to proceedings before Commissioners, in so far as they may be applicable thereto: Provided that '' (a) for the purpose of facilitating the application of the said provisions the Commissioner may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adapt them to the matter before him; (b) the Commissioner may, for sufficient reasons, proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions if he is satisfied that the interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced". From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is manifestly clear that the provisions of *Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C does not apply in Workmen's Compensation cases and, therefore, the impugned order is not appealable. Similar rules have been framed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Kamataka. Relying on the said Rules, High Courts of Jammu and Kashmir and Kamataka also held that appeal against the order refusing to set aside ex parte decree, is not appealable before the High Court. ;