NEW DELHI
The Supreme Court in the case Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav vs New India Assurance Co Ltd observed and has stated that an appeal from an order of Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law which is to be considered.
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol in the case observed and has stated that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts.
In the present case, the Gujarat High Court at Ahemdabad 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. Thus, the employee had died while he in the case was trying up logs on trailer while in employment as its driver, when one such log fell on his left leg.
It has also been directed by the commissioner that the Insurance Company to pay as compensation for an amount of Rs 3,94,120. The High Court set aside the order 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.
The court in the case noted in an appeal moved by the deceased employee’s mother and wife.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has noted that an appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered. Therefore, 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.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case pointed out 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 and the scope of the 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.
Accordingly, the court allowed the plea.