C.R. No. 1329 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1329 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.02.2010 Raj Pal .....Petitioner Versus Vikram and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present:- Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.2009, passed by the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Karnal, vide which Sh. Rattan Lal was appointed as guardian of the minors to contest the application. Rattan Lal brother of the grandfather of the minors, moved an application for being appointed as guardian, in view of the fact that the natural guardians, of the claimants were no more. The case pleaded in the application was, that the children are at present looked after by Sh. Rattan Lal, therefore, he be permitted to be appointed as guardian to contest the claim. The application was opposed, by taking a stand that the applicant does not come within the definition of the guardian, and the minors were, in fact, living with their uncle Sube Singh. Sube Singh, appeared in the Court and denied the assertions made by the petitioner and admitted the stand of Sh. Rattan Lal, to the effect that minors were staying with him, and not with Sube Singh. He also showed his inability to represent them in the case, as he was not able to protect the interests of the minors. C.R. No. 1329 of 2010 -2- The learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act accepted the application by appointing Sh. Rattan Lal to contest the claim, under the Act on behalf of minors as guardian. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the impugned order, on the ground that the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act has no authority or jurisdiction to appoint a guardian. The order impugned is, therefore, without jurisdiction, which deserved to be set aside. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the remedy with the minors, or the applicant, was to get the guardian appointed under the Guardianship Act. The application itself was not competent, before the learned Commissioner. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sh. Rattan Lal has not been appointed, as a guardian of the minors, but only Court guardian to contest the claim. The Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, acts as a Court to determine the rights of the parties, therefore, it is obligation of the Court, to have appointed a guardian to watch the interests of the minors. The acceptance of application for limited purpose, by appointing the guardian for contesting the claim, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, or barred under the Guardianship Act, as contended. No merit. Dismissed. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 26, 2010 R.S.