Divisional Manager, JKSFC vs Abdul Rashid

Sanjeev Kumar, J

The Divisional Manager, J&K State Forest Corporation ["appellant"] is in appeal against the award dated 30th July, 2014 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act (ALC, Doda) ["the Commissioner"] in fie No. 120-I entitled Abdul Rashid v. Divisional Manager, SFC Division Bhaderwah, whereby the respondent ["the claimant"] has been held entitled to a compensation of Rs.22,873/- along with simple interest @12% per annum to be calculated from the date of accident till the date of deposit of the awarded amount in the office of the Commissioner.

The impugned award has been assailed by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the claimant was a labourer engaged by the contractor of the appellant, therefore, there was no relationship of workman and employer between the claimant and the appellant. It is also submitted that the award was passed by the Commissioner without framing any issue and without properly analyzing and discussing the rival contentions.

The appellant seeks to file the appeal on the following substantial questions of law, which, as per the appellant, arise for determination in this appeal:-

i) Whether the Commissioner without determining the nature of injury could have passed the award of compensation in favour of the claimant?

ii) Whether the Commissioner could have passed the award without determining relationship of employee and employer between the respondent and the appellant?

iii) Whether the Commissioner was competent to pass the award without first formally framing issues for determination?

Having heard Mr. Vipan Gandotra, learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the record, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. The issues raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are pure questions of fact and do not constitute any substantial question of law.

The award passed by the Commissioner is well reasoned and in the light of evidence on record. It is true that the Commissioner has not formally framed any issue for determination but has discussed all the objections taken by the appellant and decided in terms of the impugned award.

The Commissioner has relied upon the testimony of four witnesses produced by the respondent to corroborate his case. As is noted by the Commissioner, all the four witnesses were the co-workers of the respondent and their statements inspired confidence. The Commissioner has, however, rejected the testimony of the witnesses produced by the appellant on the ground that they were the subordinates of the appellant and were expected to toe the line of their employer.

Although, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the statement of the departmental witnesses cannot be ignored altogether, yet in view of the preponderance of evidence brought on record by the respondent, I am of the view that the findings of fact returned by the Commissioner are well considered and therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court while hearing appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

Not only relationship of employee and employer between the respondent and appellant has been well established but all other contours necessary for grant of compensation, too, have been well established and proved by the respondent-claimant.

This Court while hearing an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence and returned findings of fact contrary to those returned by the Commissioner. Jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the determination of substantial questions of law.

Since no substantial question of law calls for determination in this appeal and the dispute raised by the appellant is factual and needs re-appreciation of evidence, I find this appeal not maintainable.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is held not maintainable, hence dismissed along with connected application.