Allahabad High Court
E.S.I.C. vs C. Lal on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1138 of 1993
Appellant :- E.S.I.C.
Respondent :- Chedi Lal
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- Neeraj Agarwal
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order impugned..
2. This appeal, at the behest of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, challenges the judgment and order dated 7.9.1993 passed by Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur in Appeal No.75 of 1993 whereby the Court below had allowed the appeal upturning the decision of the board.
3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the Medical Board issued a certificate awarding no loss of earning capacity to the injured-claimant. The injured suffered employment injuries in his right wrist resulting into delimitation of the movement of wrist joints are very painful and restricted adversely effecting the earning capacity. The employment injury was not in dispute. What is in dispute is the grant of compensation considering his employment injury to 20%. Can this be considered to be bad and perverse finding. While going through the order of the Commissioner the reasoning given is that the respondent - claimant sustained employment injury on his right wrist, the claimant had a fracture as per the x-ray report. There was fracture of lower littoral end of right hand and right radins. He has to proceed on certified leave for 17.8.201991 to 25.10.1991 meaning thereby he was incapacitated to work for 68 days. He had restricted movement, the commissioner on these factual data upturned the finding of medical board which was a unreasoned order. Thus, the finding of learned Commissioner not being pointed to be either perverse will not permit this Court to interfere under Section 30 of the Act.
4. The undersigned is fortified in the aforesaid view as the appeal under Workmen Compensation Act/Employees State Insurance Act has to be viewed very seriously in view of the judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC). The finding of fact is that the injured was an employee who had sustained employment injury and was incapacitated to the tune of 20%.
5. I am further 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."
6. 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."
7. A recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mayan Vs. Mustafa and another, 2022 ACJ 524 also holds that the Court cannot interfere unless there is a question of law involved. In our case the injury was during the course of employment. The percentage of injury was decided by the Commissioner. The judgment of Apex Court in Salim Versus New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and another, 2022 ACJ 526 will also not permit this Court to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the Commissioner.
8. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The so called questions of law framed by the Insurance Company are answered against it. In fact the substantial questions of law raised are the questions of fact.
9. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.
10. As this is an appeal of the year 1993, all the amounts kept in fixed deposit, will be transmitted to the account of claimant- Chedi Lal who shall give his bank account.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022
Mukesh
