1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1543/2008 Smt. Nangi Devi Versus The Commissioner, Workman Compensation & Ors. Date of order : 19/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashok Kumar Pareek, Cousnel for the petitioner. ****** BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Jaipur District, Jaipur in case No. W.C.C.N.F.-4/04 by passing the remedy of appeal on the premise that the order impugned is absolutely without jurisdiction and is therefore, null and void and that the petitioner cannot be required to avail the remedy of appeal as therein he shall be required to deposit the amount of compensation and produce the certificate thereabout with the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent did not fall in any of the category enumarted in Schedule II with reference to definition of workman given in Section 2(n). It was argued by the learned counsel that the Commissioner ought not to have proceeded to decide the matter on merits unless a finding as to the fact whether the respondent was a workman, was recoreded first. Learned counsel also argued that no notice under Section 10 2 could be entertained by the Commissioner unless, notice of accident in the prescribed manner was given and the claim is not preferred within two years from the date of the occurence of the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no basis for the Commissioner, Workman Compensation to accept the claim of the petitioner by accepting his case that he was earning a sum of Rs. 100/- per day. Neither any pay slip, nor salary certificate nor even any other proof was produced to substantiate this. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. In order to decide whether any judicial authority or for that matter any tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the matter, the validity of the order passed by such authority or tribunal can be examined with reference to what is aruged on the basis of the evidence laid before such authority or tribunal. If the argument of the learend counsel are examined with reference to the reply to the claim petition filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner neither raised any objection about the respondent not being a workman nor was any objection with regard to the notice required by Section 10 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 was raised. It is trite law that when competence of an authority is questioned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, such a plea not only has to be raised but also has to be substantiated which are known as jurisdictional facts. The petitioner having not raised any of these objections before the authority aforesaid, 3 cannot be now permitted to raise such objection for the first time before this Court and that is for the simple reason that had any such objection been raised, the respondent–workman would have had an opportunity to present his side of the case before the Commissioner. The validity of an order cannot be questioned by raising something, which was not raised before the authority passing such order. For the aforesaid reason, I am not inclined to uphold the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Commissioner suffers from any lack of jurisdiction. I am also inclined to accept the contention that the finding recorded by the Commissioner about daily wages of the workman for the Rs.100/- per day was not correct. The workman averred in statement that his daily earning Rs.150/- against which the learned Commissioner on examination of evidence and on comparing the wages payable to the similarily employed workmen on tractors held that the per day wages of the workman would be Rs.100/- and on that basis calculated the amount of compensation. I therefore, do not find any good reason for interfering in the order passed by the Commissioner, Workman Compensation. The instant writ petition is therefore, dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. preety Item No.28