UPVRTC appealed against an award of Rs. 2,11,790. The Court, noting the absence of substantial questions of law, upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner and High Court, dismissing the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; amount deposited shall be reimbursed to the claimants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1213 of 2000 Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Respondent :- Smt. Raj Kumari And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- ,S.K.Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Avanish Varun,Avanish Swarup
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
A) Whether the act of the deceased Shiv Singh, due to which he sustained fatal injuries, could be taken to be within the scope of the duties assigned to him as a conductor of a Corporation bus?
B) Whether the incident in which Late Sri Shiv Singh died could be termed as "arising out of and in course of employment"?
2
C) Whether the Court below was justified in holding that the claim for compensation was maintainable under the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case?
D) Whether the Corporation was liable to pay any compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case?
E) Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation to the claimants?
"15. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it
3
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.
16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. In other words, in our view, 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.
17. 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, we 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. We accordingly uphold these findings."
"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.
4
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."
Order Date :- 16.9.2019 DKS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the Workmen Compensation Commissioner's order involves a substantial question of law?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. vs Divisional Manager and AnotherFollowed¶8
Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC)
North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs Smt. SujathaRelied on¶8
North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha
E.S.I.C. vs S. PrasadFollowed¶9
F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad)
U.P.S.R.T.C.
Smt. Raj Kumari And Ors.
Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
