Allahabad High Court
E.S.I.C. vs Ranjit Singh on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1390 of 1993
Appellant :- E.S.I.C.
Respondent :- Ranjit Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tiwari
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order impugned.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the Employee State Insurance Corporation, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.04.1993 passed by Employee Insurance Court, Kanpur, (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner') in Appeal No.200 of 1992 against the order of the Medical Board allowing the appeal between Ranjeet Singh Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and awarding 30% loss or earning capacity permanently.
3. The grounds urged are basically question of facts. The award passed by E.I Court cannot be said to be perverse. It is not necessary that the owner should be declared as insolvent as alleged.
4. The appeal under Workmen Compensation 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 55%.
5. The Apex Court recently in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and this High Court in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 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."
6. 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."
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 E.I. Court, Kanpur.
8. The appeal was admitted but no question of law have been framed for a period of 30 years. The court below awarded 30% loss or earning capacity permanently and the decision of M.B. dated 25.07.1991 was set aside.
9. 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 questions of fact.
10. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.
11. This court records the absence of learned counsel for the respondents.
12. This Court is thankful to learned counsel for the appellant for getting this very old matter disposed off.
13. The record be transmitted to the Workmen Commissioner.
Order Date :- 12.5.2022
Abhishek Singh
