In Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1105, the Supreme Court observed that an appeal from an order of Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered. The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts.
Earlier, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad set aside the order of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Bhuj (Kutch), Gujarat awarding compensation in favour of legal representatives of a deceased employee. The employee had died while he was tying up logs on trailer while in employment as its driver, when one such log fell on his left leg. The commissioner had directed the Insurance Company to pay as compensation Rs. 3,94,120. This order was set aside by the High Court on a finding that the deceased was neither working with the employer nor on the date of the occurrence of the incident, received injuries and died.
In appeal filed by the deceased employee’s mother and wife, the Top Court bench noted that an appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered. The other ground making the order under challenge, amenable to interference when the scope of jurisdiction is circumscribed by it being exercised only in cases of “substantial question of law,” is perversity in the findings. Here, the impugned judgement does not, even remotely, reflect the observation that the findings arrived at by the Commissioner are perverse, the court opined. The relevant provision is Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
The court said that the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner, were “a possible view,” therefore eliminating any possibility of perversity in findings.
“With the cumulative sum of circumstances pointing to the employment of the deceased with the employer company; in keeping with the principles of the legislation being intended for social welfare and protection of employees; the Commissioner being the last authority on facts; the scope of an appeal under the said Act being limited only to substantial questions of law; and no perversity could be demonstrated from the order of the Commissioner, we set aside the order passed in First Appeal,” the court said while allowing the appeal.
Regarding the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the court said that social welfare legislation must be given a beneficial construction, matters thereunder are to be adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen awareness of the scope and intent of the Act.
コメント