Dismissed

Chairman a v. v N L and Ors. v Vishal Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2017CMA/1443/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act against an award by the Commissioner. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the Court held the Commissioner is the last authority on facts, and no substantial question of law arose to permit judicial review of the fact-finding or employer relationship.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed, confirming the Commissioner's award of Rs. 3,82,848/- with interest.

Chairman a v v N L and Ors. Vs Vishal Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1443 / 2009

¶3

Chairman, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer.

¶4

Superintending Engineer (Vi. Su.), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Nagour, Distt. Nagour.

¶5

Assistant Engineer (Vi.Su.), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Kuchaman City, Sub Tehsil Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagour.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Vishal Singh Rav S/o Shri Banshidhar Rav, R/o Colony Chamandiya, Tehsil Nawa, Distt. Nagour. At Present Resident of Care of Sugan Singh Rav, Behind Krishi Upaj Mandi, Plot No. 192, Phatak Ke Pas, Ward No. 18, Sikar (Raj.)

¶9

M/s. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Through Proprietor Gajendra Singh Rathore, Kankariya House, Behind Krishi Uaj Mandi, Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagour.

¶10

Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar (Raj.) Through Its Presiding Officer.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritwick Dave

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat & Mr. V.K. Mathur

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶15

Judgment

¶16

13/11/2017

¶17

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sikar in Case No.WCC/NF/3/2005.

¶18

Brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the claimant/respondent filed a claim petition under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar, stating therein that he suffered burn injuries

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[CMA-1443/2009]

¶21

on 18.01.20004 in his left leg and left hand while working as employee of appellants and respondent No.2 M/s Gajendra Singh Rathore and thus he demanded Rs.14,40,000/- as compensation. The appellants filed its reply to the claim petition denying the averments made therein. The appellants raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction and stated that the contractor i.e. respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation, if any, to the injured claimant. Respondent No.2 also filed its reply denying the averments made. The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sikar vide its order impugned dated 19.12.2008 awarded compensation of Rs. 3,82,848/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the claimant.

¶22

Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent was not under the employment of the appellants and he was working through a contractor. However, the Commissioner has not considered this aspect of the matter and wrongly passed the award.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

This Court vide order dated 27.04.2009 passed the

¶26

following order:-

¶27

“The appeal so far as the claimant is concerned, stands dismissed.

¶28

Issue notice to the respondent No.2, the contractor.”

¶29

(3 of 5)

¶30

[CMA-1443/2009]

¶31

The contention raised by the Counsel for the appellants that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the appellants is not acceptable in view of the fact that the Commissioner after recording the evidence and considering the documents available on record has given a finding in favour of the claimant regarding employment of the claimant.

¶32

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna & Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., (2017) 1 SCC 45 , in paragraphs 8

¶33

to 10 has held as under:-

¶34

“8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows:

¶35

“30. Appeals. -(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:-

¶36

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a halfmonthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;

¶37

[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;]

¶38

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a halfmonthly payment;

¶39

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

¶40

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 12; or

¶41

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing

¶42

(4 of 5)

¶43

[CMA-1443/2009]

¶44

for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

¶45

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees:”

¶46

(Emphasis supplied)

¶47

The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

¶48

Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen’s 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 elfare 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. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.”

¶49

Thus, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons, firstly no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal; secondly

¶50

(5 of 5)

¶51

[CMA-1443/2009]

¶52

this Court vide order dated 27.04.2009 dismissed the appeal against the claimant, and thirdly the Commissioner is the last authority on facts.

¶53

In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed.

¶54

(INDERJEET SINGH),J.

¶55

KKC/50

Chairman a v. v N L and Ors. v Vishal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chairman a v. v N L and Ors. v Vishal Singh and Ors.

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

Govindsahay through His Lrs Vs Manak Lal and Ors.

Ramkishore and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Heeralal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Kailash Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pankaj Sharma Vs Smt Priyanka Sharma

Bhanwar Hemant Singh Jadon Vs State of Raj and Anr.