Rajasthan High Court

Balveer Singh And Anr vs Gopal Sharma And Ors on 19 October, 2023

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2023:RJ-JP:30161]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 29/2018

1.       Balveer Singh, Founder Owner And Director, S.t.n. Cable
         Netwark, R/o New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan
2.       Kapil Arora S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Arora, R/o 12B, New
         Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.       Gopal Sharma S/o Shri Prabhu Lal, R/o House No. 18,
         Rajput Sector, Keshavpura, Kota Rajasthan.
2.       Smt. Kaushlya Bai W/o Shri Gopal Sharma, R/o House
         No. 18, Rajput Sector, Keshavpura, Kota Rajasthan.
                                                     ...Claimants/Respondents

3. Sanjay Pathak S/o Shri Mahendra Pathak, R/o House No. 11/139, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Kota Prop. Karan Cable Network, 255 B, Shrinathpuram, Kota

4. Bharat Jhamnani, Prop. S.t.n. Through, R.t.l. Office, G/247, Indraprstha Industrial Area, Road No.5, Jhalawar Road, Kota Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 19/10/2023

This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants u/s

30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of

1923) against the judgment dated 18.08.2017 passed by learned

Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Kota (for short 'learned

Commissioner') in claim case No. J.L.C./F/19/2011 titled as Gopal

Sharma & Anr. Vs. Sanjay Pathak & Ors., whereby an amount of

[2023:RJ-JP:30161] (2 of 6) [CMA-29/2018]

Rs.2,08,732/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f

01.06.2006 has been awarded as compensation in favour of

respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants (for short 'the claimants') and

penalty to the tune of 20% of the compensation amount has also

been imposed upon the non-claimant No.1-Sanjay Pathak.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned

Commissioner has wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the

claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that

claimants failed to prove that deceased was employed by

appellants. Initially, claim petition was filed against the respondent

Nos.3-Sanjay Pathak and 4-Bharat Jhamnani respectively. The

said claim petition was ex-parte decreed. After that, ex-parte

judgment and decree was set aside and respondent No.4 filed

reply to the claim petition in which he stated that deceased was

not working under his employment. He also mentioned that he

had no relationship with S.T.N. Cable Network and further stated

that appellants are the owners of S.T.N. Cable Network, so,

appellants were impleaded as a party but no notice under Section

10 of Employees Compensation Act was ever given to them.

Claimants failed to submit any document regarding employer-

employee relationship between the appellants as also deceased.

So, appeal be allowed and judgment dated 18.08.2017 passed by

learned Commissioner be set aside.

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that learned

Commissioner rightly allowed the claim petition filed by the

claimants. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

The appeal has been submitted on the findings of facts. In support

of his contentions, counsel for the claimant has placed reliance on

[2023:RJ-JP:30161] (3 of 6) [CMA-29/2018]

the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of

Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager and Anr. reported in

2017 (1) SCC 45 and North East Karnatka Transport Corporation

Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned

judgment including the documents available on the record.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by

the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of

evidence and the same are not liable to be disturbed by this

Court.

In the opinion of this Court also, the learned Commissioner is

the last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. (supra):

"8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows;

30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lumpsum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;]

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12; or

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

[2023:RJ-JP:30161] (4 of 6) [CMA-29/2018]

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b),unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees (Emphasis supplied)

10. Under the scheme of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question 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. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.

Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of North East Karnataka Transport Corporation (supra):

"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 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.

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore,

[2023:RJ-JP:30161] (5 of 6) [CMA-29/2018]

they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law.

12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can he heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case.

In "M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra

Bhaga Devi wide of Mool Chand & Anr.", reported in 1985(1) WLN

455, this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act

has laid down law that unless there is as question of public

importance and there is no final interpretation available while the

substantial question of law is arising, the appeal under the

Workmen's Compensation Act cannot been entertained. Relevant

portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

"8. Moreover, under S. 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial question of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved.

9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of

[2023:RJ-JP:30161] (6 of 6) [CMA-29/2018]

importance, it would become a substantial questions of law."

It is the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction

has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial

question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and re-

appreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the

evidence led by both the parties.

This Court 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. This Court accordingly upholds these

findings.

Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial

question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no interference is

called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed.