IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11114-11119 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 6696-6701 of 2015)
GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court whereby
the compensation awarded to them has been drastically reduced. The High
Court re-appreciated the evidence and substituted its own views with that
of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and made a fresh assesment.
By order dated 16.02.2009, the Labour Officer cum Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner, Division No. II, Bellary passed the following order:
“In considering the employment of the petitioners, documents produced
before the court and the evidence of the doctor, considering the
disablement decided by the doctor, and considering that the respondent
No.2, failed to prove the allegations denied by the respondent No.2, I
decide that the petitioner No.1 has suffered 35% of the disablement, the
second petitioner has suffered 35% of the disablement, the third petitioner
has suffered 35% of disablement, the 4th and 5th petitioners have suffered
40% of disablement each and 6th petitioner has suffered 35% of the
disablement with subsequent loss of earnings and decided the above issue
No.1 in favour of the petitioners.”
Accordingly, the appellants were awarded the compensation based on their
wages.
The Insurance Company challenged the order passed by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner, under Section 30(1) of The Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) mainly on the
ground that the injuries had not been proved before the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner, and therefore, the appellants were not entitled
to the compensation as awarded by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.
The High Court has clearly held that … “the dispute is in respect of the
nature of injuries suffered by the claimants”.
The relevant consideration by the High Court appears at paragraph-9 of the
impugned judgment:
“9. … this Court is of the opinion that the accident appears to be true
involving the offending lory, but, the injuries said to have suffered by
the claimants is not established, in as much as, there is no document on
record to substantiate the same, except the wound certificates issued by
the Community Health Centre immediately after the accident. However, the
said document also appears to be fabricated and fails in as much as, the X-
ray stated in each of these certificate is not proved by any one of the
petitioners before the Commissioner. Assuming for a moment that the X-ray
of the claimant was taken, where it was taken and when it was taken is not
forthcoming. Admittedly, the Community Health Centre, are not provided with
x-ray machine so as to take the X-ray and assess the nature of injuries
suffered by the claimants. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that
the entire exercise by the petitioners before the Commissioner is to create
a make-believe situation to show that indeed in the said accident said to
have taken place on 15.8.2008 (sic) they have suffered serious injuries
which was resulted in permanent disability to whole body of each ranging
from 35% to 40% resulting in loss of earning capacity to equal percentage.
In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the grounds urged by the
Insurance Company in these appeals appears to be true and correct which is
required to be upheld by this Court. ”
The High Court went further to hold that on the basis of the available
evidence, the disability would only be to the extent of 5% of the whole
body resulting in 5% of the loss of earning capacity. Paragraph-10 of the
impugned judgment deals with the issue, which reads as follows:
“10. In that view of the matter, the common judgment and order passed by
the Tribunal in these petitions before the Commissioner is required to be
modified having regard to the nature of injuries and disability suffered by
the claimants due to the accident. Accordingly, this Court holds that all
the petitioners before the Tribunal have suffered disability to the extent
of 5% to the whole body resulting in 5% loss of earning capacity.”
Accordingly, the compensation has been reworked. Thus, aggrieved, the
appellants are before this Court.
Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the
extent, the provision reads as follows:
“30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following
orders of a Commissioner, namely:-
(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;]
(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)
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.
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 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.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned common judgment passed
by the High Court is set aside. The order dated 16.02.2009 of the Labour
Officer cum Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Division No. II, Bellary
in W.C.A. Nos. 229/2008 to 234/2008 is restored.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
........................................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
......………………………………J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
New Delhi;
November 23, 2016.
-----------------------
REPORTABLE
-----------------------
3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11114-11119 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 6696-6701 of 2015)
GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. ... APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court whereby
the compensation awarded to them has been drastically reduced. The High
Court re-appreciated the evidence and substituted its own views with that
of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and made a fresh assesment.
By order dated 16.02.2009, the Labour Officer cum Workmen’s Compensation
Commissioner, Division No. II, Bellary passed the following order:
“In considering the employment of the petitioners, documents produced
before the court and the evidence of the doctor, considering the
disablement decided by the doctor, and considering that the respondent
No.2, failed to prove the allegations denied by the respondent No.2, I
decide that the petitioner No.1 has suffered 35% of the disablement, the
second petitioner has suffered 35% of the disablement, the third petitioner
has suffered 35% of disablement, the 4th and 5th petitioners have suffered
40% of disablement each and 6th petitioner has suffered 35% of the
disablement with subsequent loss of earnings and decided the above issue
No.1 in favour of the petitioners.”
Accordingly, the appellants were awarded the compensation based on their
wages.
The Insurance Company challenged the order passed by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner, under Section 30(1) of The Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) mainly on the
ground that the injuries had not been proved before the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner, and therefore, the appellants were not entitled
to the compensation as awarded by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.
The High Court has clearly held that … “the dispute is in respect of the
nature of injuries suffered by the claimants”.
The relevant consideration by the High Court appears at paragraph-9 of the
impugned judgment:
“9. … this Court is of the opinion that the accident appears to be true
involving the offending lory, but, the injuries said to have suffered by
the claimants is not established, in as much as, there is no document on
record to substantiate the same, except the wound certificates issued by
the Community Health Centre immediately after the accident. However, the
said document also appears to be fabricated and fails in as much as, the X-
ray stated in each of these certificate is not proved by any one of the
petitioners before the Commissioner. Assuming for a moment that the X-ray
of the claimant was taken, where it was taken and when it was taken is not
forthcoming. Admittedly, the Community Health Centre, are not provided with
x-ray machine so as to take the X-ray and assess the nature of injuries
suffered by the claimants. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that
the entire exercise by the petitioners before the Commissioner is to create
a make-believe situation to show that indeed in the said accident said to
have taken place on 15.8.2008 (sic) they have suffered serious injuries
which was resulted in permanent disability to whole body of each ranging
from 35% to 40% resulting in loss of earning capacity to equal percentage.
In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the grounds urged by the
Insurance Company in these appeals appears to be true and correct which is
required to be upheld by this Court. ”
The High Court went further to hold that on the basis of the available
evidence, the disability would only be to the extent of 5% of the whole
body resulting in 5% of the loss of earning capacity. Paragraph-10 of the
impugned judgment deals with the issue, which reads as follows:
“10. In that view of the matter, the common judgment and order passed by
the Tribunal in these petitions before the Commissioner is required to be
modified having regard to the nature of injuries and disability suffered by
the claimants due to the accident. Accordingly, this Court holds that all
the petitioners before the Tribunal have suffered disability to the extent
of 5% to the whole body resulting in 5% loss of earning capacity.”
Accordingly, the compensation has been reworked. Thus, aggrieved, the
appellants are before this Court.
Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the
extent, the provision reads as follows:
“30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following
orders of a Commissioner, namely:-
(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;]
(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)
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.
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 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.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned common judgment passed
by the High Court is set aside. The order dated 16.02.2009 of the Labour
Officer cum Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Division No. II, Bellary
in W.C.A. Nos. 229/2008 to 234/2008 is restored.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
........................................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
......………………………………J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
New Delhi;
November 23, 2016.
-----------------------
REPORTABLE
-----------------------
3
