IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6449 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 05.10.2010 Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. Sukhwinder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present : Mr.Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners -- VINOD K.SHARMA,J (ORAL) This Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Gurdaspur which reads as under:- “I have examined the file and have also heard the Inspector ESI. The Civil Surgeon Gurdaspur has issued a certificate and assessed the permanent loss of Right Leg as 50%. The ESI is directed to get the examination of workman from Medical Board for this injury with clear cut recommendations. The copy of this order be given dasti to the Inspector present in the Court to comply with the direction and submissions of report of Medical Board constituted under the ESI Act. The case is adjourned to 22/09/10.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order by contending that the learned Commissioner has Civil Revision No.6449 of 2010 -2- passed the impugned order, even though he had no jurisdiction to direct the employees State Insurance Corporation to conduct medical examination of the workmen as the petition filed before the Commissioner is under the workman Compensation Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case M/s Abad Fisheries and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ernakulam and others 1985 (50) FLR page 512 to contend that when a workman is insured under the employees Corporation then he is only entitled to claim compensation under the E.S.I. Act and not under any other enactment. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner therefore is that as the Commissioner, has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, therefore, could not have directed the E.S.I. hospital to assess the disability suffered by the workman. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, as the petitioners have not challenged the proceedings pending before the Commissioner, Workmens’ Compensation, but the order, in a pending proceeding, to assess the disability of the workman, and to verify the report of the Civil Surgeon who assessed the disability of the workman to be 50%. This is yet to be determined on the facts and circumstances of the case, as to whether the Commissioner is competent to adjudicate the matter or not. The impugned order does not determine that rights of the parties but only directs the hospital to assess the disability, which will Civil Revision No.6449 of 2010 -3- have no effect on the question as to whether the claim petition filed, by workman is maintainable or not. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) October 05, 2010 Judge p.singh