Dismissed

Executive Engineer and Another v. Sri Dinesh Kumar

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2022FAFO/1087/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal from order No. 1087 of 1997, the Allahabad High Court examined the maintainability of the appeal regarding compensation for an employment injury. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Consequently, findings of fact on disability percentage must be upheld unless perverse or arbitrary. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; interim relief vacated; fixed deposit amounts to be transmitted to the claimant's account.

Executive Engineer and Another Vs Sri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1087 of 1997 Appellant :- Executive Engineer And Another Respondent :- Sri Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Mehta,C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

This appeal, at the behest of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, challenges the judgment and order dated 30.6.1997 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bareilly in W.C.A. No.27 of 1992 whereby the Court below had allowed the appeal upturning the decision of the medical board.

¶5

Brief facts are that the Medical Board issued a certificate awarding 50% loss of earning capacity to the injured-claimant. The injured suffered employment injuries on his left leg. The employment injury was not in dispute. What is in dispute is the grant of compensation considering his employment injury to be 50%. Can this be considered to be bad and perverse finding?

¶6

The facts cannot be gone into by this Court as they are not perverse. The factual data goes to show that on 2.4.1982 during his service, the claimant- Dinesh Kumar suffered employment injury and after ten years, reply was filed.

¶7

The undersigned is fortified in the aforesaid view as the appeal under Workmen Compensation Act/Employees State Insurance Act has to be viewed very seriously in view of the judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC). The finding of fact is that the injured was an employee who had sustained employment injury and was incapacitated to the tune of 15%.

¶8

This Court supported in its view by the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 wherein it has been held by the Court as under:

¶9

"15. 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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."

¶12

This Court, recently in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has followed the decision in Golla Rajana (Supra) and has held as follows:

¶13

"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."

¶14

A recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mayan Vs. Mustafa and another, 2022 ACJ 524 also holds that the Court cannot interfere unless there is a question of law involved. In our case the injury was during the course of employment. The percentage of injury was decided by the Commissioner. The judgment of Apex Court in Salim Versus New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and another, 2022 ACJ 526 will also not permit this Court to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the Commissioner.

¶15

Be that as it may be, the learned Judge has answered all the question of fact in favour of claimant and has granted a benefit as per law, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the well reasoned order.

¶16

Even on the smallness of the amount, this appeal requires to be dismissed and even on merits also, no case is made out.

¶17

Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.

¶18

As this is an appeal of the year 1997, all the amounts kept in fixed deposit, will be transmitted to the account of claimant

¶19

who shall give his bank account. Order Date :- 15.9.2022 Mukesh

¶20

Digitally signed by MUKESH SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.13 19:20:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Executive Engineer and Another v. Sri Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer and Another v. Sri Dinesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farhat Riyaj and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naseer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Masha Allah Vs Shri Pradeep Gupta and Another

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shanti Devi and Another

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Rahisa Begum and Others