Appeal against Workmen's Compensation Commission award dismissed; court held dispute is factual, no substantial question of law,
Appeal dismissed; show cause questions of law answered against appellant; interim relief vacated.
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. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1318 of 2000
Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Respondent :- Raja Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
4 . The Apex Court recently in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and this High Court in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has held as follows:
"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."
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 wherein it has been held that the Court has held as under:
"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.
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."
Digitally signed by MUKESH SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.13 19:20:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award involves a substantial question of law or is merely a question of fact.
Whether the finding that the appellant is not completely disabled is perverse.
Whether there is any legal ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Commissioner and the High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC)Explained¶3
Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC)
E.S.I.C. Vs. S. PrasadReferred¶4
F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad)
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. SujathaApplied¶6
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha, Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009
1 provisions across 1 enactments
United India Insurance Company
Raja Singh
Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
