Alok Coal Agency vs Dhaneshwari Devi

Perused the Stamp Reporter''s report regarding the non-maintainability of the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent based on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chhaya Rani v. Dhan Devi @ Srimati Dhan Dei 1997 (2) All PLR 147.

We have perused the aforesaid judgment and find that the Division Bench has taken a view that having regard to the history of legislation and limited and restricted nature of appeal as contemplated in Section 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as ''the W.C. Act''), an appeal from the judgment of the Single Judge passed u/s 30 of the W.C. Act is not maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters patent.

Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kanta Sinha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2001 (3) JCR 268 (Jhr : 2001 (2) JLJR 206, wherein their Lordships have taken a contrary view and have held that an appeal against the judgment of a single Judge passed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the M.V. Act'') is appealable to a Division Bench under clause 10 of the Letters patent. Chandra Kanta Sinha (supra) was a case which arose from a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court. This case related to and arose out of a judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of Patna High Court u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent was not maintainable. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court setting aside the Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court took the view that the appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent is maintainable. In our view, an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against a Single Bench Judgment rendered u/s 30 of the W.C. Act is identical to a matter relating to and arising out of a judgment rendered by a Single Judge u/s 140 of the M.V. Act.

The Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Smt. Chhaya Rani (supra) also proceeds on the premises that the scope of an appeal u/s 30 of the W.C. Act being restrictive. Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. It does take notice of the proposition of law that unless the Legislature restricts the right of appeal or takes away the right of appeal, the appeal is maintainable. Despite taking note of such proposition of law, the Division Bench in Smt. Chhaya Rani (supra) proceeds to hold and lay down that letters patent appeal is not maintainable. Our prima facie view is that, perhaps, such proposition of law is not in conformity with the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment in Chandra Kanta Sinha (supra).

Based on the aforesaid reasonings, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt, Chhaya Rani (supra) requires reconsideration, especially in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Kanta Sinha (supra).

The appeal is admitted.

On the aforesaid question of law, let it be referred to a larger bench of three Judges.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are totally disinclined to grant any interim relief of any nature. We, accordingly, direct that the amount deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner shall be liable to be disbursed to the respondent-claimant.

Order accordingly.