Appeal Under Section 30 Of Employees Compensation Act Must Involve Substantial Question Of Law: Delhi High Court

The bench noted that the determination of the employer-employee relationship between the Management and the deceased workman does not constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Management under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 was dismissed.

Brief Facts:

The Management, a proprietorship business dealing in air conditioners and parts, had employed a Workman who died due to a workplace accident. An FIR was filed for the same which confirmed the incident. Subsequently, the representatives of the deceased workman sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- before the Commissioner of Employees Compensation. The Commissioner ruled in favour of the representatives and directed the Management to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,67,640/- along with 12% interest per annum from 29.07.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the Management approached the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) and filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court noted that the jurisdiction of appeals is given under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which encompasses orders such as those awarding or disallowing compensation, as well as other related matters. Moreover, it held that such appeals under Section 30 must involve a "substantial question of law" to be entertained.

The High Court noted that the Commissioner unequivocally held that the deceased workman sustained fatal injuries during his employment with the Management. While the claimant's father was not an eyewitness to the accident, the reliance on the contents of the First Information Report (FIR) and the statement of the co-worker during the investigation by the learned Commissioner was held to be legally sound by the High Court. It held that the proceedings under the Employees Compensation Act are of a summary nature, and therefore, the strict technicalities of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, cannot be applied. It held that the probative value of the FIR, recorded promptly after the accident, carries weight, especially considering the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The High Court noted that the representatives laid the basic foundation for the claim, thereby shifting the onus onto the Management to disprove the employer-employee relationship. It held that the Management, possessing superior resources and access to evidence, failed to counter the claim effectively.

The High Court held that the determination of the employer-employee relationship between the Management and the deceased workman does not constitute a substantial question of law suitable for consideration under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act.

Therefore, the High Court held that the impugned order exhibited no glaring irregularities, legal fallacies, or erroneous legal methodologies. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for its misconceived and ill-conceived nature. Moreover, the Management was directed to bear exemplary costs amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.

Case Title:M/S Madras Trading Co Vs Ramjeet @ Ramajeet & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 536

Case Number: FAO 119/2017 & CM APPL. 9580/2017, CM APPL. 28069/2018

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate.

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. O.P. Singh, Mr. Sunil Sharma & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advocates.

Click Here To Read Download Order