Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923: s.30 – Appeal against the order of Commissioner – Scope of interference – Held: The appeal under s.30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie only against the specific orders set out in clause
(a) to (e) of s.30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law – In the instant case, employee died while on duty due to heart attack – The Commissioner allowed the claim petition filed by widow awarding Rs.3,79,120/- – High Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner – On appeal, held: 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 – The concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are binding – Even otherwise, there was no ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings – None of the factual findings were found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law – These findings are upheld.
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923: s.4-A – Interest – Grant of – The Commissioner allowed the claim petition with direction to the appellant-employer to deposit the awarded sum within 45 days failing which the awarded amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a. – Held: The Commissioner awarded the interest to the respondents @ 12% per annum on the awarded sum but it was awarded from the expiry of 45 days from the date of order and that too, if the appellant failed to deposit the awarded sum within 45 days – This direction of the Commissioner in awarding the interest on the awarded sum was contrary to law laid down in Pratap Narain’s case and, therefore, not legally sustainable – In the light of this, even though the respondent did not challenge this direction yet the question being a pure question of law, with a view to do substantial justice to the respondent, the order of the Commissioner is modified in respondent’s favour to the extent that the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident – Interest. Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The questions 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 dependents 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. These questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, 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. [Paras 9-10] [1047-G-H, 1048-A-C]
1.2 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 be 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. [Paras 11-12][1048-C-E]
2.1 When an employer files the appeal, he is under a legal obligation to deposit the entire awarded sum in terms of second proviso to Section 30 of the Act as a pre-condition to file the appeal in the High Court except where the appeal is filed against the order falling in clause (b). It is only when the employer deposits the entire awarded money along with the memo of appeal duly certified by the Commissioner, his appeal is regarded as being properly filed in conformity with the requirement of Section
30 of the Act. 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. [Paras 13-15][1048-E-H; 1049-A]
2.2 In the instant case, the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions. In other words, 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. 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, there is no 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. These findings are upheld. [Paras 16, 17][1049-B-C]
3. The grant of interest on the awarded sum is governed by Section 4-A of the Act. The Commissioner awarded the interest to the respondents at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded sum but it was awarded from the expiry of 45 days from the date of order and that too, if the appellant failed to deposit the awarded sum within 45 days. This direction of the Commissioner in awarding the interest on the awarded sum is contrary to law laid down in Pratap Narain’s case and hence not legally sustainable. In the light of this, even though the respondent did not challenge this direction yet the question being a pure question of law, this Court with a view to do substantial justice to the respondent consider it just and proper to modify the order of the Commissioner in respondent’s favour. The order of the Commissioner is modified in favour of the respondent to the extent that the awarded sum of Rs. 3,79,120/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 06.04.1999. [Paras 18-20, 26-30][1049-D-E; 1051-B-G] Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata & Anr. (1976) 1 SCC 289 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : [1976] 2 SCR 872; Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Valsala K. & Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 254 : AIR 1999 SC 3502 : [1999]
2 Suppl. SCR 657 – followed.
National Insurance Company Ltd v. Mubasir Ahmed & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 349 : [2007] 2 SCR 117; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohmad Nasir & Anr.
(2009) 6 SCC 280 : [2009] 8 SCR 829; Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd v. Siby George and others (2012) 12 SCC 540 : [2012] 6 SCR 1079 – referred to.
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.