Workmen Compensation Act: Appeal From Commissioner's Order Can Be Entertained Only If There Exists Substantial Question Of Law- SC
The Supreme Court has held that an appeal under the Workmen Compensation Act (WCA) against the commissioner's order is sustainable if a ‘substantial question of law’ is to be decided or if the findings are perverse.
The Court allowed a Civil Appeal challenging the High Court's decision that overturned the Commissioner’s order. The Commissioner granted compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased employee, who died after being struck by a log while tying logs onto a trailer.
The Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol held, “The Act is unequivocal in stating that an appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered…(para 21) 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 judgment does not, even remotely, reflect the observation that the findings arrived at by the Commissioner are perverse”.
Advocates Shreyas Mehrotra and Rahul Gupta appeared for the Appellants and Advocate Meera Agarwal appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellants, the mother and wife of the deceased Ramakant Yadav, claimed that he died while working as a driver for Kutch Carrier. They alleged that he was tying logs onto a trailer when one fell on his left leg, causing his death before he could receive medical treatment. However, the insurer denied the deceased's employment with Kutch Carrier due to a lack of documents and proof of income. The insurer denied the claim for compensation of ₹3,94,120/-.
Despite the insurer's denial, the Court ordered the Respondents to pay the compensation amount with interest from the date of the deceased's death. The employer was also ordered to pay a penalty of 50% of the compensation amount. A Civil Appeal was filed challenging the judgment of the High Court whereby the Court had set aside the order of the Commissioner for WCA, awarding compensation in favour of legal representatives of the deceased employee.
The Court observed that the impugned judgment must stand true on two grounds, (i) statutory text and (ii) whether the materials on record support the conclusion drawn therein or not.
The Court noted that as per the WCA, an appeal can only be made from an order of the Commissioner if there is ‘a substantial question of law’ to be considered and the phrase is to be interpreted according to its general meaning, based on the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court observed that the CPC rule states framing a substantial question of law is essential.
However, the Bench observed that a substantial question of law was not framed in the impugned judgment, which is a prerequisite for an appeal to be entertained. The Court noted another reason for an order to be challenged is if the findings are perverse.
The Court said that the Commissioner's order and the Appellate Court's judgment differed in their determination of an employer-employee relationship. The Commissioner believed this relationship existed, while the Appellate Court found the claimants had not proved it. The High Court overlooked this critical question of limited jurisdiction under Section 30 and sought to reevaluate the evidence, the Court noted.
“The difference, between the two judgments, i.e., the order of the Commissioner and the judgment in First Appeal, was on the point of the employer-employee relationship having been established. The Commissioner held such relationship to have been established however, the appeal Court observed that “claimants have clearly failed to prove this aspect”, the Bench said.
The Bench referred to the case of Golla Rajamma & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr [(2017) 1 SCC 45] and noted that under the scheme of WCA, the Commissioner is the final authority that an adjudicate on the facts and evidence of the case unless the circumstances mentioned under Section 30 arises.
The Court noted that Prima facie, the question that arises and remains un-addressed throughout was as to what the deceased was doing with the trolley as also the goods laden on it, which he was tying or untying at the time of his death.
The Bench, while emphasising that the WCA was designed to promote social welfare, noted that the WCA should be interpreted in a way that favours the employees.
The Court held that the affidavit presented to the Commissioner stated that the deceased was an employee of the company. After thoroughly examining all the relevant facts, such as the presence of the deceased at the location, the ownership of the trolley and its goods, and the supervisor of the employer company, the Court held that the deceased was indeed an employee of the company.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned orders.
Cause Title: Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2023 INSC 790)
