Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 – Victim died as he was tying up logs on trailer – The Commissioner directed insurer to pay compensation of ₹3,94,120/- and the employer was directed to pay ₹1,97,060/-, i.e., 50% of the compensation amount as penalty – High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner – Propriety: Held: A bare perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law – The wording of the Act indicates that the existence of such a question is a prerequisite to the appeal being entertained – The difference, between the two judgments, i.e., the order of the Commissioner and the judgment in First Appeal, was on the point of the employer-employee relationship having been established – The Commissioner held such relationship to have been established however, the appeal Court observed that “claimants have clearly failed to prove this aspect” – The Commissioner had not returned any findings in respect of the validity of non-availability of the license of the deceased nor was it one of the questions framed by the Commissioner for consideration – In such a situation, while exercising powers within the limited purview allowed by section 30 of the Act, the Court below erred in making observations – It is settled that Commissioner is the last authority on facts involved in a case – The circumstances, i.e., the presence of the deceased at the spot; the ownership of the trolley and the goods loaded therein; the presence of this supervisor of the employer company; and details mentioned in the inquest panchnama form, when considered together, point to the aspect of the deceased person being on the roll of the employer – Keeping with the principles of the legislation being intended for social welfare and protection of employees; the Commissioner being the last authority on facts; the scope of an appeal under the said Act being limited only to substantial questions of law; and no perversity could be demonstrated from the order of the Commissioner. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 29, 32]
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 – s.30 – An appeal from an order Commissioner – To be entertained if there exists a substantial question of law:
Held: The Act is unequivocal in stating that an appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered – It has been observed by the Supreme Court that the phrase “substantial question of law” within this Act shall be understood by its general meaning – When considering the general meaning of this phrase, naturally, the reference is to the Code of Civil Procedure – The rule therein is that framing of a substantial question of law is of cardinal importance. [Para 17]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
North – East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha (2019)
11 SCC 514 : [2018] 13 SCR 1043; C. Manjamma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 6 SCC 206; K. Sivaraman v. P. Sathishkumar (2020) 4 SCC
594 : [2020] 4 SCR 480 – relied on.
Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit (2008) 12 SCC 212 : [2008] 6 SCR 938; Golla Rajamma & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr. (2017) 1 SCC 45 : [2016] 9 SCR 469 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.