Dismissed

Executive Engineer Tubewell Division v. Radhika Devi

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2018FAFOD/330/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against a Workmen's Compensation award. The court held that findings of fact on disability percentage are for the Commissioner and refused to interfere. The appeal regarding part-time employee status was rejected as it did not raise a legal question.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC; Findings of Workmen's Commissioner upheld.

Executive Engineer Tubewell Division Vs Radhika… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 330 of 1999 Appellant :- Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Respondent :- Radhika Devi Counsel for Appellant :- S.C. Srivastava

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

The delay is of many days which is is not explained properly.

¶5

Be that as it may be, the delay is condoned.

¶6

The question of part time employee is covered under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and they are deemed to be employed, hence this question does not arise as a question of law and is rejected.

¶7

As far as the question of injuries is concerned, I do not find any perversity in the judgment of Workmen's Commissioner and it is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and this High Court in FAFO 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has held as follows:

¶8

"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."

¶9

No question of law arises for adjudication, hence appeal is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 21 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶10

Order Date :- 30.1.2018/Mukesh

¶11

Court No. - 27

¶12

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 330 of 1999 Appellant :- Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Respondent :- Radhika Devi Counsel for Appellant :- S.C. Srivastava

¶13

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶14

( Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application)

¶15

Delay condoned.

¶16

For order see order of date passed on memo of appeal.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.1.2018/Mukesh

Executive Engineer Tubewell Division v. Radhika Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer Tubewell Division v. Radhika Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariyan Vs Motilal and Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs S.M. Ilyas

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Bala Unnija and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Admn. Officer Vs Khem Karan and Others

M/S Hari Om Iron Foundry Vs Union of India

Nagar Mahapalika through Administrator Vs Satyaveer Singh