Chh HC | Limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only

Chhattisgarh High Court

Chhattisgarh High Court: Anoop Kumar Dhand J. dismissed the appeal as it does not fulfill the requirement mandated under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent filed a claim petition under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, claiming compensation on account of death of one Kalulal who died in the road accident occurred on 26.01.2008. It was also stated in the claim petition that the death occurred during the course of the employment. Hence, the claimant is entitled to get compensation as the deceased was working as a ‘Khalasi’ and drawing salary of Rs.4750/- per month. A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the impugned judgment and award dated 05.12.2012 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Bundi, Rajasthan (for short ‘the learned Commissioner’) in WCC/F//51/2011 by which the claim petition filed by the claimantrespondent has been allowed and the Insurance company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs 3, 96,165/- to the claimant-respondent with interest.

Counsel for insurance company submitted that that there was no relationship of employee and

employer between the insured and the deceased and no notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1923 was given. Hence, the claim petition was not maintainable.

The Court relied on judgment Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer v. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi 1985(1) WLN 455, and observed that unless there is as question of public importance and there is no final interpretation available while the substantial question of law is arising, the appeal under the Workmen’s Compensation Act cannot be entertained.

The Court observed that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and reappreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties. Thus, the Court find no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law.

The Court held “Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed.”

[Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Shyam, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 301/2013, decided by 28-01-2022]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearances:

For Appellant(s): Mr. Virendra Agarwal and Mr. Prakhar Agarwal

One comment

  • I FEEL THE BLOG IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AS AN ADVOCATE AS THE SAME ALLOWS ME TO KEEP ABREAST OF THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW ARENA. KINDLY KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. GOD BLESS YOU.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.