Erroneous Finding Can't Be The Basis For Entertaining Appeal u/s 30 of Employee's Compensation Act, Unless It Raises Substantial Question Of Law: Rajasthan High Court

Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,

"It is settled law that unless the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner, are not shown to be perverse, the same are not required to be interfered with in the appeal. Any erroneous finding or any error of law cannot be the basis for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 unless such erroneous findings do not give rise to substantial question of law."

The court observed that the Employee's Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at alleviating the sufferings of the workman, who suffers injuries resulting from disability or the sufferings of the legal heirs of the workman who dies in such accident.

Moreover, the court opined that the position of law is well settled that the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 to the High Court, against the order of Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to the first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court also opined that the regular civil first appeal under Section 96 of CPC can be heard both on facts and law whereas the scope of appellate court to decide the appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is confined only to examine the substantial question(s) of law arising in the case.

In the present matter, the miscellaneous appeal has been filed by Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, assailing the award dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Court of Commissioner, the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 Jaipur District-II, Jaipur awarding compensation of Rs.3,44,855/- to claimants with interest @12% per annum and along with the order to make payment of the medical expenses also.

The court examined the following questions of law as suggested by the Insurance Company and has been answered accordingly::

(a) Whether a workman after his duty hours leaves his work place for his house, will he still be treated to be in the course of employment?

(b) Whether a claim based on fabricated facts, as an afterthought merely with an intention to get a false claim from Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs as justice and fraud cannot be allowed to walk together hand in hand?

Reliance was placed by the court in Krishna Weaving Mills v. Chandra Bhaga Devi [MANU/RH/0167/1984], wherein the Rajasthan High Court while deciding the appeal under Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act, 1973, held that the question of public importance and question of which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. In this regard, the court observed that the present appeal is not liable to be admitted on these questions of law as the question Nos.(a) and (b) do not fall within the scope of substantial question of law.

(c) Whether the ECC can entertain the claim when no court fee has been paid by the claimants at the time of filing of the claim in contravention of the provisions of the Court Fee Act?

The court refused to treat question (c) as substantial question of law because as per Rajasthan Workmen's Compensation (Costs & Fees) Rules, 1959, the amount of fee on application for compensation to the extent of one rupee where the same does not exceed Rs.500/- plus one rupee in each of Rs.500/- or fraction thereof, where compensation is claimed in the form of lump sum amount. The court observed that it is within the power and jurisdiction of the Commissioner, to remit any or all of such fees. It appears that no such objection of non-payment of court fee by the claimant was raised before the Commissioner and no issue in this regard was framed, added the court.

The court observed that all these questions are essentially the question of facts and require re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence. The court opined that as far as factual issues are concerned, it is a clear proposition of law that the jurisdiction to appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record and to deliver findings thereupon lies with the Commissioner. The finding of facts by the Commissioner are treated as final as the Commissioner is the last authority to record findings on facts, added the court.

It was opined that the High Court, while exercising its powers and jurisdiction as appellate court under Section 30 of Act of 1923 may not and should not re-appreciate the evidence and pleadings to substitute the factual findings of the Commissioner, by its own view. The court added that unless and until the findings recorded by the Commissioner do not raise any substantial question of law, the same are not required to be interfered with.

Further, the court ruled,

"The present appeal does not qualify the requirement of involving any substantial question of law, which is mandatory requirement under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 to entertain and admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is not worth for admission and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."

The counsel for appellant Insurance Company argued that the judgment passed by the Commissioner is erroneous and illegal as much as the same give rise to substantial question(s) of law as proposed hereinabove.

The counsel for respondents-claimants argued that all the questions are related to the question of facts and may not be treated as substantial question(s) of law.

Adv. Pratap Singh Arya appeared for the appellant, while Adv. Govind Khandelwal appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manhbar Devi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 68