IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1450 of 2010 1. Sanjay Mistri, 2. Vijay Mistri @ Nijay Mistri, both sons of Late Faggu Mistri R/O Gewalbigha, Painpar, P.S. Rampur, Distt. Gaya – Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Deputy Labour Commissioner Cum Commissioner (Workmen'S Compensation) Magadh Division, Gaya 3. Sitaram @ Sitaram Das S/O Late Akhaji Das R/O Sohanbigha, P.O. Pandey Parsawan, P.S. Magadh Medical College, Distt. Gaya – Respondents. 3 2.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is ex parte under the Workman’s Compensation Act. The facts are that the petitioner is owner of Sanjay Saw Mill. The workman, namely, Sitaram @ Sitaram Das has alleged that due to the defective knife fitted in the mill, he received grievous injury. The workman has filed a case under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The order impugned contained in Annexure 1 has been passed on an application filed on behalf of the petitioner to recall the ex parte order. True it is, that there is no provision for recall or review. Rule 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules reads as follows: “41. Certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to apply.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these Rules the following provisions 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; 2 “(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.” It appears that some of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is provided that the provisions of Order IX would be applicable in such cases. The Deputy Labour Commissioner may consider this aspect and pass an order on the application of the petitioner as per the provisions of Order IX rule 13. If the Deputy Labour Commissioner finds that the notice was issued and duly served on the petitioner, then he will pass an order accordingly. Obviously the opposite party would need to be noticed in this case. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition by quashing the order contained in Annexure 1 and remanding the matter back to the Deputy Labour Commissioner who will decide the matter in accordance with the provisions aforesaid. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)