In this S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge against the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award. The Court held that the Commissioner is the last authority on facts and no substantial question of law was involved.
Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the Commissioner upheld.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 305 / 2009
Hari Nayak son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Nayak, aged 33 years, resident of Gram Mehegore, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Distt. Jaipur
----Appellant/Claimant
Versus
----Respondents/defendants.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Judgment / Order
20/11/2017
[CMA-305 / 2009]
(2 of 4)
stated by him that at the time of accident, he was 45 years of age and he was working as driver under the employment of respondent No.1 and was rating Rs.4000/- per month salary and Rs.50/- as daily bhtta, as such he prayed for awarding the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
“8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows:
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
[CMA-305 / 2009]
(3 of 4)
[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;]
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;
(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;
(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
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:
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: (Emphasis supplied)
[CMA-305 / 2009]
(4 of 4)
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. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court Under Section 30 of the Act.”
6. Heard counsel for the parties.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Jyoti/29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence regarding the percentage of loss of earning capacity in a workmen's compensation appeal.
Whether the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation is the final authority on facts under Section 30 of the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Golla Rajanna and Others vs. Divisional ManagerReferred¶19
Golla Rajanna and Others Vs. Divisional Manager (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases Page 45
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Hari Nayak
Ranjeet Kumar Malik
National Insurance Company Limited
INDERJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
