Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Smt. Madhury Srivastava And ... on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 149 of 2006
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Smt. Madhury Srivastava And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Mrs. Sarita Singh,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. State of Uttar Pradesh has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.5.2022 passed Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner') in G.R. Compensation No.29 of 2001 awarding compensation of Rs.1,72,520/- with interest at the rate of 12%.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that deceased-Satya Prakash Srivastava was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It is submitted that he was Boring Technician in the Office of Block Development Officer, Nath Nagar, Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar and he was not a workmen as per the definition.
3. It is further submitted that the deceased was not employed in the capacity which has been mentioned in Schedule 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, hence, his dependent are not liable to be paid any compensation.
4. It is also submitted that he was getting salary of Rs.4800/- which was in excess of Rs.1,000/- and therefore also the claim petition was not maintainable. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claim petition was not maintainable as no notice was ever served to the defendant-appellant before filing of the claim petition.
5. It is submitted that the compensation awarded is against the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and interest at the rate of 12% could not have been granted. The State has framed the following substantial question of law in their grounds of appeal:
"i. Whether deceased Satya Prakash was workmen defined under Workmen's Compensation Act or not.
ii. Whether claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act is maintainable or not."
6. This Court while admitting the appeal has not specified as to on which question of law, the appeal was admitted.
7. This is a defective appeal of the year 2006. Notice has been sent but it has come back with note that respondents are not staying at the place shown in the cause title.
8. On 23.7.2021, this Court passed the following order :
"Counsel for the appellant may provide the correct address of the respondent within three weeks.
List threafter.
Whenever the case is listed next, name of Chief Standing Counsel may be printed in the cause list as counsel for the appellant"
9. The above order has not yet been complied with. Be that as it may, as the matter has remained pending for more than 16 years without even service on the respondent-destitute widow of the original deceased. Reason for condoning the delay are also not explained properly. The delay cannot be condoned. Even on merits, this appeal cannot be entertained if we go by the facts that the deceased was in service, the Tribunal has not considered income to be Rs.4800/-, it has restricted itself to Rs.2000/- which was of outer limit, it has considered the age of the deceased and considered the factor as applicable.
10. The accident occurred in the year 1999 when the deceased was in employment and, therefore, Section 4A of the Act which came to be amended specifies that the interest would be payable would be statutory rate of 12% and, therefore, the Commissioner has not fallen in error.
11. As far as submission that he was not workmen, Schedule 2 as it applies to the State of Uttar Pradesh would be applicable to the deceased as he would fall in Schedule 2 (iii). Thus, said ground also fails.
12. I am supported in my view by the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 wherein it has been held that the Court has held as under:
"15. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law.
16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. In other words, in our view, the Commissioner decided all the material questions arising in the case properly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and rightly determined the compensation payable to the respondent. It was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High Court on facts.
17. In this view of the matter, the findings being concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are binding on this Court. Even otherwise, we 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. We accordingly uphold these findings."
13. This Court, recently in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has followed the decision in Golla Rajana (Supra) and has held as follows:
"The grounds urged before this Court are in the realm of finding of facts and not a question of law. As far as question of law is concerned, the aforesaid judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Versus Divisional Manager and another (supra) in paragraph 8 holds as follows "the Workman Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions 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."
14. Recent decision of the Apex Court in Mayan V. Mustafa and Anr. 2022 ACJ 524 also holds that the Court cannot interfere unless there is a question of law involved and finding of fact sought to be assailed. The decision of the Apex Court in Salim v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2022 ACJ 526 also will not permit this Court to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Commissioner.
15. In view of the above, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2022
DKS
