Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru Executive ... vs Sarnamm Singh on 28 April, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 711 of 2022
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru Executive Engineer Upper Ganga Canal
Respondent :- Sarnamm Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the respondent has absented himself as her name was not shown in the cause list.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.8.2002 passed Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Additional District Magistrate, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner') in Suit No.7 of 2000.
3. The claimant had claimed that he was workmen. The Commissioner accepted him as workmen and granted him a sum of Rs.1,75,540/- and considered his disability 40% , therefore, total sum of Rs.Rs.70,216/- with interest at the rate of 12% was awarded.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that injured was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
5. 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, he is not liable to be paid any compensation.
6. 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.
7. The injured-claimant was cleaner in Hodal Canal at Mile No.10. While doing the work he had been injured. Thus, it can be said to injury arising out of employment injury. The accident took place on 17.3.1985. The facts prove the same. The accident occurred in the year when the injured 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.
8. 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.
9. 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."
10. 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."
11. 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.
12. In view of the above, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed as no question of law arises.
Order Date :- 28.4.2022
DKS
