Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 30 Of The ... vs Surekha Sahu & Ors on 17 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 281 of 2024
(An appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act,
1923)
The Manager Legal, SBI General .... Appellant(s)
Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar
-versus-
Surekha Sahu & Ors. .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Sk. Ruplal, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-03.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The appellants in the present appeal are challenging the judgment dated
07.05.2024 passed in E.C. Case No.12 of 2023 by the learned
Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour
Commissioner, Angul.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The deceased, aged about 37 years, was engaged as a driver and, on
17.06.2023, at about 11:30 A.M., while performing his duties in the
TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No. OR-19-F-6254, suddenly
experienced discomfort and became ill.
(ii) He was unable to continue driving the vehicle due to the heavy
pressure, stress, and strain and was immediately taken to the District
Headquarters Hospital, Angul, for treatment, where he was declared
dead by the attending doctor.
(iii) Following the death of the deceased, the Respondents, as his legal
dependents, filed a claim under the Employees' Compensation Act,
1923, in E.C. Case No. 12/2023, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-,
contending that the death occurred in the course of his employment.
(iv) Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned
Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour
Commissioner, Angul, awarded a sum of Rs. 15,94,750/- to the
Respondents as compensation, along with interest.
(v) Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant has preferred the present
appeal, challenging the Commissioner's order.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The judgment passed by the Commissioner is arbitrary, illegal, and
contrary to the materials on record, and is therefore unsustainable. The
Commissioner erred in holding that the deceased was a "workman" as
defined under the Employees' Compensation Act and that there existed
an employer-employee relationship with Respondent No. 5, despite the
absence of any material on record to substantiate such a finding.
(ii) The Commissioner acted illegally and with material irregularity in
holding that the deceased sustained a sudden illness, when Respondent
No. 5 did not produce any documentary evidence, such as employment
registers or wage records, to establish the existence of a master-servant
relationship. Further, the deceased was not registered under the Motor
Transport Workers Act, which undermines the finding of workman
status.
(iii) Respondent No. 5 was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the
incident, having transferred ownership to one Biswamber Sahu prior to
the date of the incident, as confirmed by RTO records. Accordingly,
there was no question of employer liability, and the statements relied
upon by the Commissioner, including those of a previous owner
unconnected to the matter, are irrelevant and inadmissible.
(iv) The Appellant also submits that the Commissioner failed to consider
material documentary evidence, including the FIR lodged by Bikash
Pradhan, who admitted that the deceased was employed as his driver,
and other records collected from the Police Station, RTO, and hospital.
The rejection of the Appellant's application to adduce evidence through
an investigator further resulted in a decision based on incomplete and,
at times, fabricated documents.
(v) The Commissioner erred in determining the age and monthly income
of the deceased in the absence of any documentary evidence. In the
absence of proof of income, compensation ought to have been
calculated based on the minimum wages prevailing on the date of the
incident.
(vi) The direction to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days, along with
interest at 12% per annum and an additional penalty in case of default,
is unsustainable. Under the terms of the insurance policy, there was no
contractual obligation to pay interest, and the Commissioner's order is
contrary to the settled position of law as recognized by this Court as
well as the Supreme Court.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The learned Commissioner, after considering the evidence, including
examination of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, and the documents exhibited under
Exts. 1 to 11 to establish vehicle ownership, validity of insurance,
employment, and wages of the deceased, rightly awarded Rs.
15,94,750/- as compensation along with simple interest at 12% per
annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment.
(ii) The Commissioner rightly directed the insurer to deposit the awarded
amount within 30 days for disbursement to the claimants, failing which
it would carry interest at 12% per annum from 05.05.2024 until actual
payment.
(iii) The substantial questions of law raised by the insurer, namely, the
ownership of the vehicle, employer-employee relationship, and
imposition of interest, have already been addressed. Ownership and
employment were established through documentary evidence,
including the R.C. Book, fitness certificate, and R.T.O. records, as well
as the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, corroborated by admissions of the
owner in his written statement. The imposition of interest is justified in
law.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION-
CUM- DIVISIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ANGUL:
5. The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation-cum-Divisional
Labour Commissioner, Angul, by judgment dated 07.05.2024 in E.C.
Case No. 12 of 2023, allowed the claim application filed under Section
10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
6. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence, including the employer's
admission and documents such as the driving licence, employment-
cum-salary certificate, FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and
insurance policy, the Commissioner held that the deceased was a
"workman" within the meaning of the Act and that his death arose out
of and in the course of employment. The age of the deceased was
accepted as 37 years and his monthly wage as ₹15,000/-, being the
statutory ceiling notified by the Central Government.
7. Applying Section 4(1)(a) of the Employees' Compensation Act and the
relevant age factor of 192.14, the Commissioner computed the
compensation at ₹14,41,050/-, and further directed payment of interest
at 12% per annum from the date of accident (17.06.2023) till realization.
8. The total amount payable was thus assessed at ₹15,94,750/-, to be
deposited by the insurer within 30 days, failing which it would carry
further interest at 12% per annum from 08.05.2024 till actual payment.
V. THE COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
10. The present appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923.
11. The proviso to Section 30 makes it clear that no appeal shall lie against
an order of the Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is
involved. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 30 is, therefore,
limited to questions of law. The Court cannot reappreciate the evidence
or disturb findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner unless they
are perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law.
12. Section 30 contemplates appeals against orders awarding or
disallowing compensation, awarding interest or penalty under Section
4, refusing redemption of half-monthly payments, or providing for
distribution of compensation among dependents. Consequently,
appeals under Section 30 are intended to address legal infirmities rather
than factual disputes, which fall squarely within the purview of the
Commissioner.
13. In North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha1, the
Supreme Court elucidated the scope of Section 30 of the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923. The relevant extract is as follows::
"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a
settled principle, that the question as to whether the
employee met with an accident, whether the accident
occurred during the course of employment, whether it
arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the
accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the
accident, whether there existed any relationship of
employee and employer, what was the age and monthly
(2019) 11 SCC 514.
salary of the employee, how many are the dependants of the
deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the
employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether
there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer
to cover the incident, etc. are some of the material issues
which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a
claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury
or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs
sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the Act."
14. The Appellant in the instant case has raised the following questions as
substantial questions of law:
A. Whether the Commissioner was justified in concluding
that the deceased was a workman under the Act and that the
death arose out of and in the course of employment.
B. Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that
the deceased was a workman of Respondent No-5,
particularly given the alleged transfer of vehicle ownership
prior to the incident.
C. Whether the Commissioner was justified in assessing the
age and monthly income of the deceased in the absence of
documentary evidence.
D. Whether the Commissioner was justified in directing
payment of interest in the main order, particularly when
there is no finding regarding compliance with Section 10-A
of the Act.
E. Whether the Commissioner was justified in directing
further interest and penalty for delayed payment under the
main order.
15. A careful examination of these points shows that they are essentially
questions of fact, not substantial questions of law. They require the
appreciation of witness statements, documentary records, and the
weighing of conflicting contentions, all of which are functions
exclusively within the domain of the Commissioner. None of these
questions involve interpretation of statutory provisions or principles of
law that would give rise to a substantial question of law under Section
30. The Court's jurisdiction on appeal is therefore limited, and these
factual issues cannot form the basis of interference.
16. As such, a careful examination of the pleadings, evidence, and
documents demonstrates that the Commissioner thoroughly
considered all relevant material, including employer admissions,
statements of witnesses, and documentary evidence such as the driving
licence, employment-cum-salary certificate, FIR, inquest report, post-
mortem report, R.C. Book, and insurance policy. On this basis, the
Commissioner concluded that the deceased was a workman within the
meaning of the Act and that his death arose out of and in the course of
employment.
17. The Appellant's contentions regarding the alleged absence of an
employer-employee relationship, purported transfer of vehicle
ownership, and lack of documentary evidence concerning the
deceased's age and income have been examined in detail. The findings
of the Commissioner are well-supported by the evidence. The FIR and
employer admissions corroborate employment, the RTO and insurance
records establish vehicle ownership and coverage, and the statutory
ceiling of ₹15,000 per month along with the relevant age factor has been
correctly applied in computing compensation. The factual record
therefore fully supports the Commissioner's conclusions.
18. Moreover, challenges to the award of interest, including additional
interest in case of delayed payment, are without merit. Sections 4 and
4A of the Act empower the Commissioner to direct payment of interest
on compensation. The imposition of interest and further direction for
delayed payment is entirely within the Commissioner's jurisdiction and
conforms with established law.
19. The evidence further indicates that the deceased suffered sudden illness
and death while performing his duties, and that such death arose out of
and in the course of employment. The Commissioner correctly relied
upon the available medical, post-mortem, and inquest reports, together
with witness statements, to arrive at this conclusion.
20. Having carefully considered the entire record, the submissions of
learned counsel, and the relevant statutory provisions, it is evident that
the Appellant's contentions do not raise any substantial question of law.
The points raised relate primarily to factual issues and the appreciation
of evidence, which are squarely within the domain of the
Commissioner.
VI. CONCLUSION:
21. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the Appellant's contentions,
including the alleged lack of employer-employee relationship,
purported transfer of vehicle ownership, assessment of age and wages,
and direction of interest and penalty, do not raise any substantial
question of law. These points are essentially questions of fact and
evidence appreciation, which fall squarely within the domain of the
Commissioner.
22. The Commissioner's findings are based on admissible and credible
evidence, including employer admissions, statements of witnesses, and
documentary records such as the driving licence, employment-cum-
salary certificate, FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, R.C. Book,
and insurance policy. The law has been correctly applied to the facts,
and there is no material irregularity, perversity, or illegality in the
impugned order.
23. The appeal is devoid of merit and is consequently dismissed.
24. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th October, 2025/
