Partly allowed

Swara v. Girish Kumar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 Sept 2025CMA/3920/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan held that it lacked jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, to interfere with the WC Commissioner's finding of fact regarding the percentage of disability. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court ruled that absent a substantial question of law, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substi

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 07.02.2025 setting aside the Commissioner's order and recording 40% disability was set aside. The Commissioner's order confirming 13% disability wa

Swara Vs Girish Kumar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:35817]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3920/2009

¶4

Sawra @ Sawar S/o Shri Ramkishan, R/o Bhagwantpura, TehsilSarwar, Ajmer

¶5

----Claimant/Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Girish Kumar S/o Kishan Gurjar, R/o 3517, Suttarkhana Mohalla, Nasirabad (Vehicle Owner)

¶8

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- Prathviraj Marg, Ajmer (Insurance Company)

¶9

----Non Claimants/Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pranjal Mundhra for Mr. Veyankatesh Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vimal Kumar Yadav for Mr. Rishipal Agarwal

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order

¶12

RESERVED ON : 12/08/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17/09/2025

¶13

vihykFkhZ us ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky;] vk;qDr] deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 vtesj ftyk& vtesj }kjk dsl la[;k MCyw-lh-,s-¼,u-,Q-½ 07@2006 esa ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; fnukad 25-08-2007 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls fo}ku vk;qDr }kjk vihykFkhZ dks 1]61]280 #i, vkSj bl jkf’k ij 9 izfr’kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt dh nj ls C;kt nkok nk;j djus dh fnukad 31-01-2006 ls fu.kZ; fnukad rd vnk;xh fd, tkus dk funsZ’k fn;k x;k gSA

¶14

vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd fd nq?kZVuk esa vihykFkhZ ds xaHkhj {kfr igqaph gS vkSj mldk nka;k iSj iats ds ikl ls vk/kk dkV fn;k x;k gSA vihykFkhZ [kyklh dk dke djrk Fk] mlds iSj dVus ls og viuk dk;Z lqpk: :i ls laikfnr ugha dj ik,xkA ,slh fLFkfr esa mlds Hkfo"; dh vk; dh gkfu dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, 100

[2025:RJ-JP:35817]

[CMA-3920/2009]

(2 of 7)

izfr’kr vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk fu/kkZfjr dj izfrdj jkf’k fnykuh pkfg,] tcfd fo}ku vk;qDr us fpfdRldh; izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij 40 izfr’kr dh vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk crkbZ gS] vr% rn~uq:i vihykFkhZ dh vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj izfrdj dh jkf’k esa vfHko`f) dh tkosA

¶19

vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu fofu’p; izLrqr fd;k gS%& 1- Bhag Narayan Ram and Manik Sarkar and another 2001(1) L.L.N. 1154.

¶20

izR;FkhZ chek daiuh ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd vfLFk jksx foHkkx jktdh; fpfdRlky;] vtesj ds jftLVMZ fpfdRld dh vksj ls vihykFkhZ lkojk dk vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k&i= izn’kZ 22 tkjh fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa mlds 40 izfr’kr dh vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk crkbZ xbZ gSA fo}ku vk;qDr us Hkh bl vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij 40 izfr’kr dh vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk ekurs gq, izfrdj jkf’k dk fu.kZ; fof/k vuqdwy fd;k gSA /kkjk 30 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds varxZr ekuuh; vihyh; U;k;ky; rF; ds iz’u ij fu.kZ; ugha dj ldrh gS] mDr fu.kZ; vk;qDr }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA orZeku vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u varoZfyr ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 30 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds varxZr ;g vihyh; U;k;ky; fo}ku vk;qDr ds vkyksP; fu.kZ; esa gLr{ksi ugha dj ldrh gSA

¶21

izR;FkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu fofu’p; izLrqr fd;k gS%& GOLLA RAJANNA AND OTHERS Versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 45

¶22

eSaus mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk izLrqr fofu'p;ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶23

bl izdj.k esa ;g iz’u varoZfyr gS fd D;k vihyh; U;k;ky; /kkjk 30 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds varxZr l{ke fpfdRld }kjk tkjh vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k&i= esa vafdr vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk ds laca/k esa gLr{ksi dj ldrh gS\

(3 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:35817]

[CMA-3920/2009]

bl laca/k esa /kkjk 30 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 dks ;gka mYysf[kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk&

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

¶31

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased employee, 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

¶32

(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:

¶33

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 n thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties:

¶34

Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause

¶35

(a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.

¶36

(2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.

(4 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:35817]

[CMA-3920/2009]

(3) The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section.

¶41

izdj.k ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ lkojk izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 fxjh’k dqekj ds fu;kstu ds nkSjku fnukad 04-02-2005 dks gkbos ij ?kkfl;kj ds ?kkVs] xksxqUnk FkkukUrxZr] ftyk mn;iqj igqapk] rHkh okgu la[;k ,pvkj- 38&Mh&9685 ij [kyklh ds :i esa fu;qDr jgrs gq,] mDr okgu ds pVVku ls Vdjkus ds dkj.k vihykFkhZ nq?kZVukxzLr gqvk] bl dkj.k vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls /kkjk 22 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds varxZr fo}ku U;k;ky; deZdkj izfrdj vk;qDr] vtesj ds le{k Dyse ;kfpdk izLrqr dh xbZA izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls ;g fLFkfr lkeus vkbZ gS fd vihykFkhZ ds pksVxzLr gksus ij Hkksiky fpfdRlky;] mn;iqj HkrhZ djk;k vkSj mlds ckn jktdh; tujy vLirky] ulhjkckn HkrhZ djok;k] tgka mldk nka;k iSj iats ds ikl ls dkV fn;k x;kA mDr vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk ds vk/kkj ij ,lksfl,V izksQslj] vfLFk jksx foHkkx rFkk vkpk;Z ,oa foHkkxk/;{k] esfMdy T;wfjLV vtesj us vihykFkhZ ds 'kjhj ij vkbZ pksVksa dk eqvk;uk dj mlds nka, ij iSj ds iats ds ikl ls vk/kk iSj dVus ds dkj.k ls mldh 40 izfr’kr vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk ekuh gSZA fo}ku vk;qDr us fpfdRld }kjk tkjh izn’kZ 22 vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k&i=] vihykFkhZ ds osru 3]000@& #i, ekfld o 20 o"kZ dh vk;q ds vuqlkj deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 f'kM;wy 4 ds fjysosUV QSDVj 224 ds vuqlkj 40 izfr’kr dh {kfr ij eqvkotk jkf’k 1]61]280 @& #i, fu/kkZfjr dh gSA

¶42

Golla Rajanna And Others Versus Divisional Manager And Another (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 45 fofu'p; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%&

¶43

^* 9. 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

(5 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:35817]

[CMA-3920/2009]

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

10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. 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 reappreciate 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

blh izdkj North East Karnataka Road Transportion Versus Smt. Sujatha AIRONLINE 2018 SC 920 fofu'p; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%&

¶50

^* 9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

¶51

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the

(6 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:35817]

[CMA-3920/2009]

aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.

¶56

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law.

¶57

12. In Other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a Regular First Appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case.''

¶58

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk mDr fofu’p;ksa esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 30 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds varxZr vihyh; U;k;ky; rF; ds iz’u ij vo/kkj.kk ugha ns ldrh gSA ;fn iathdr fpfdRld }kjk vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj tks vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gS] mldks fo}ku vk;qDr us nf"Vxr fd;k gS rks ml vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k&i= esa vafdr vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk ds laca/k esa /kkjk 30 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds varxZr vihyh; U;k;ky; gLr{ksi ugha dj ldrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr fofu’p; esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij iathd`r fpfdRld }kjk vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k&i= esa vafdr vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk] ftlds laca/k esa fo}ku vk;qDr us foospu fd;k gS] bl laca/k esa foospuk /kkjk 30 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds varxZr bl vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ugha dh tk ldrh gSA vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls tks fofu’p; esa izLrqr fd, x, gSa] mu fofu’p;ksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr fofu’p; dk m)j.k ysrs gq, ;k blds izfrdwy ,slk er O;Dr ugha fd;k gS] ftlls ;g Li"V gks ldrk gks fd /kkjk 30 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e]

¶59

(7 of 7) [CMA-3920/2009]

¶60

[2025:RJ-JP:35817]

¶61

1923 ds varxZr rF; ds iz’u ij vFkkZr~ iathd`r fpfdRld }kjk tkjh vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk izek.k&i= esa vafdr vLFkk;h fu;ksZX;rk ds laca/k esa fo}ku vk;qDr }kjk fn, x, er ds foijhr dksbZ foospu vihyh; U;k;ky; dj ldrk gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fofu’p; ls vihykFkhZ dk s dksbZ lgk;rk izkIr ugha gks ikrh gSA

¶62

vr% vihykFkhZ lkojk dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy varxZr /kkjk 30 deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 lkjghu gksus ls vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA fo}ku U;k;ky;] vk;qDr] deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 vtesj ftyk& vtesj }kjk dsl la[;k MCyw-lh-,s-¼,u-,Q-½ 07@2006 lkojk cuke fxjh'k vkSj vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 25-08-2007 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA

¶63

fo}ku vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k ;fn bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gks j[kk gS] rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk ykSVk;k tkosA

¶64

KISHAN SONI / Res.

Swara v. Girish Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swara v. Girish Kumar 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

Pyare Lal and Others Vs Sharvan Kumar and Others

Lali Devi Swami and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

Lokesh Sharma S/O Shri Bijendrasingh, Vs Bikramsingh S/O Shri Atarsingh

Smt. Santok Devi Wife of Late Shri Rajulal Vs Omprakash Choudhary S/O Shri Nanuram Choudhary

Hargovind Nirbhik S/O Shri Kesari Lal Vs Nikhil Khandelwal S/O Shri Mahesh Chandra

Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Prakash Vs Nandkishor Bairwa S/O Shri Harchand Bairwa