Workmen's Compensation Commissioner Last Authority For Deciding Claim On 'Facts'; Appeal Lies Only On 'Substantial Question Of Law': Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court has held that under the scheme of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the Compensation Commissioner is the last authority to decide any claim on facts. No appeal lies against its order unless a substantial question of law is involved.Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand therefore dismissed an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of Commissioner...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that under the scheme of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the Compensation Commissioner is the last authority to decide any claim on facts. No appeal lies against its order unless a substantial question of law is involved.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand therefore dismissed an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi, for not qualifying any substantial question of law under.
It observed,
"Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed."
Essentially, the claimant-respondent had filed a claim petition under the Act of 1923, claiming compensation on the death of one Kalulal, who died in the road accident. It was also stated that the claimant is entitled to get compensation as the deceased was working as a 'Khalasi' and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.4750/-.
The Commissioner initiated ex-parte proceedings against the vehicle's owner, whereas the appellant-Insurance Company, in its reply, objected that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the insured and the deceased and no notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1923 was given. However, Commissioner allowed the claim petition directing the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.3,96,165/- with interest, and hence, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal.
In this regard, the court ruled,
"Court find no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly uphold these findings."
The court opined that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court, which is confined to the substantial question of law only. The court also observed that the High Court cannot venture and reappreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties.
The court relied on Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager (2017), wherein the Apex Court observed that under the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts.
The Apex Court added,
"The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."
The court observed that a similar view was taken in North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha (2019), whereby Apex Court ruled that the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can he heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case, adde the Apex Court.
Reliance was also placed on Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi, where the Apex Court held that without formulating a substantial question of law, appeal cannot be sustained. The court further relied on M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi w/o Mool Chand (1985), where this Court observed that the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained unless there is a question of public importance or a final interpretation available for the substantial question of law.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the provisions of the Act of 1923 were not attracted as the learned Commissioner has committed an error while allowing the claim petition as the claimant-respondent has failed to establish the relationship of employee and employer. He further argued that there was non compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 10 of the Act of 1923, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment of compensation to the claimant respondent.
Advocates Virendra Agarwal and Prakhar Agarwal appeared on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Kota v. Shyam @ Jagdish S/o Gopal Lal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 44