The writ was denied for the reason that the claim had not been fully disposed of by the department. State ex rel. Crabb v. Olinger, 191 Wn. 534, 71 P.2d 545. Then, after conducting hearings, at which time the employer was given opportunity to present evidence, the joint board sustained the supervisor's award.

There is no provision in the statute for a rehearing before the joint board after it has made its final order upon an appeal from the supervisor. State ex rel. Crabb v. Olinger, 191 Wn. 534, 71 P.2d 545, is cited to sustain the position of appellant that it may proceed in the manner it has. It is clear from a reading of the opinion in the case cited that that citation lends no support to the appellant. Crabb sustained an accidental injury while engaged in extra-hazardous employment.

The department had ruled that the workman was without the protection of the law, and evidently the injured man was anxious to accept that ruling and sue the employer for damages. It was properly held that the courts had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by the employer from the departmental ruling, as the employer was aggrieved thereby and had the right to present to the courts the question of whether or not the workman was within the scope of the act. In the case of State ex rel. Crabb v. Olinger, 191 Wn. 534, 71 P.2d 545, this court held that an employer, adversely affected by an order of the supervisor, could, under Rem. Rev. Stat., §§ 7697 and 10837 [P.C. §§ 3488, 4-79], apply for a rehearing before the joint board. The matter was presented to this court on an original application by the workman for a writ of mandate requiring the state auditor to issue warrants in favor of the workman in a sum which he alleged had been awarded to him by an order of the supervisor.

By recent decisions of this court, construing Rem. Rev. Stat., § 7697 [P.C. § 3488], it is settled that an employer has a right of appeal to the courts in industrial insurance cases. Mud Bay Logging Co. v. Department of Labor Industries, 189 Wn. 285, 64 P.2d 1054; State ex rel. Winningham v. Olinger, 190 Wn. 697, 70 P.2d 317; State ex rel. Crabb v. Olinger, 191 Wn. 534, 71 P.2d 545; Mud Bay Logging Co. v. Department of Labor Industries (on rehearing), 193 Wn. 275, 75 P.2d 579; State ex rel. Hills v. Olinger, 193 Wn. 365, 75 P.2d 926. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 7697, cited above, relates to rehearings before the joint board and appeals to the courts, and specifically provides that such proceedings shall be informal and summary, with full opportunity to be heard.

We have held that, when the claim of a workman is allowed by the supervisor, the employer is to be considered as an "aggrieved" party and may apply for a rehearing before the joint board, and, ultimately, may appeal to the courts. State ex rel. Crabb v. Olinger, 191 Wn. 534, 71 P.2d 545; Mud Bay Logging Co. v. Department of Labor Industries, 193 Wn. 275, 75 P.2d 579. This is upon the theory that the employer's cost experience has been affected by the allowance of the claim.

Since the sixty-day period prescribed by statute in which to appeal from the order of the supervisor and to apply for a rehearing before the joint board, has expired, respondent is not entitled to a rehearing before the joint board of the department. Murray v. Department of Labor Industries, 151 Wn. 95, 275 P. 66; Booth v. Department of Labor Industries, 189 Wn. 201, 64 P.2d 505; State ex rel. Crabb v. Olinger, 191 Wn. 534, 71 P.2d 545; Albrecht v. Department of Labor Industries, 192 Wn. 520, 74 P.2d 22. The order of the supervisor became res adjudicata upon the expiration of sixty days from the date on which the order rejecting the claim was communicated to the applicant.

[1] Even though the employer had no right to a rehearing before the joint board, and the petition therefor was void and ineffectual, because it did not conform to the regulations of the department in such matters, the department, nevertheless, had a right to grant a rehearing on its own motion. [2] In the case of State ex rel. Crabb v. Olinger, 191 Wn. 534, 71 P.2d 545, the claimant presented an original application for a writ of mandate in this court, directed to the supervisor of industrial insurance requiring him to transmit proper vouchers to the state auditor authorizing the issuance of warrants in payment of compensation in the total sum of $2,235, which had been awarded to the relator, the claimant, by a previous order of the supervisor. After that order was entered, the supervisor made an order reopening the claim, and the writ was there denied.

"From the order of the department rejecting the claim, the logging company appealed, as was its right under § 8, ch. 310, Laws of 1927, p. 850, to the superior court for Thurston county." In the case of State ex rel. Crabb v. Olinger, 191 Wn. 534, 71 P.2d 545, we cited Rem. Rev. Stat., § 7697 [P.C. § 3488], and pointed out that: "This section provides that any claimant, employer, or other person aggrieved by any order of the department of labor and industries must, before appealing to the courts, apply to the joint board of the department for a rehearing.