Divisional Manager SFC vs Qadir Baksh and Others

S.K. Gupta, J.—Since the claim petitions filed by the respondents herein have been decided by a common award, all these appeals shall

stand disposed of by this common order.

These appeals, u/s 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') preferred by Divisional Manager State Forest

Corporation, Udhampur, are directed against the award dated 31.8.2002 passed by Commissioner Workmen's Compensation (Assistant Labour

Commissioner) Doda, Camp Ramban, thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 8,13,900/- to the applicants by giving break up of each applicant, inclusive

of interest at the rate of 12% effective from the date of institution of claim upto the date of award, in accordance with Section 4(1)(b) of the Act,

on the ground of physical disability suffered by them, as assessed by the medical evidence.

Facts of the case, in short, may be noticed. Respondents-applicants, namely, Qadir Baksh, Atta Mohammad Bali, Gulzar Begum and Mohd

Qasim Bali, presented separate applications in respect of their respective claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the

Commissioner Workmen's Compensation (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Doda, each alleging that while in employment under the appellant-

non-applicant, they met with an accident on 3.5.1997 in Compartment No. 106 Jungle Katra Nemaie, Udhampur, as a result of which they

suffered multiple injuries. It was further stated that during their employment with the appellant-non-applicant a shed fell over them and they

sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred in the course of their employment with the appellant-non-applicant. Appellant-non-applicant was

put on notice and, while contesting the claims of applicants, the appellant-non-applicant in their reply took the ground of having no knowledge

about the employment of the applicants-respondents and expressed their ignorance of applicants having received any injuries during the course of

their employment. In support of their claims, the respondents-applicants examined witnesses including the Doctor. The respondents-applicants also

appeared as their own witnesses in support of their assertions. The Doctor, after examining the applicants-respondents depicted in detail the

injuries suffered by them and the nature of the disability caused to each applicant. The Doctor has further indicated the percentage of disability and

the age in case of each applicants-respondents. All the witnesses examined by the respondents-applicants, unanimously and with one voice stated

that the applicants were working as Labourers with the appellant-non-applicant and they suffered injuries in an accident on account of collapse of

wooden shed while they were in the employment of the State Forest Corporation. No evidence was adduced by the appellant-non-applicant to

controvert the evidence of the respondents-applicants.

The learned Commissioner, on the basis of record, accepted the case of the respondents-applicants and passed the award on the basis of oral

and medical evidence with regard to the percentage of disability assessed in case of each applicant, detailed in the award and after taking into

consideration the aspect of relationship of master and servant between the appellant and respondents by giving their age by making reference to

Section 4(1)(b) read with Schedule IV of the Act, in his award dated 31.8.2002, which became the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record meticulously, I find that the findings recorded by the learned

Commissioner are based on appreciation of un-controverted evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents-non-applicants and any prudent man,

on perusing the materials on record, will come to such findings. Therefore, there is no scope of interference with such findings of facts in this appeal

u/s 30 of the Act.

That apart, it is pertinent to point out that in appeal, unless a substantial question of law is raised by the appellant, no appeal shall lie. It is further

apt to point out that the wording ""no appeal shall lie unless a substantial question of law is involved"" is not happily worded. It leaves a loophole for

an argument that if a substantial question of law is involved, an appeal would lie not only on question of law, but also on facts. The phrase

substantial question of law"", however, must be given a wider construction than what is attributed to it and would include a case where the

Commissioner has misdirected himself on a question of law or commits procedural irregularities. Since no question of law has been raised in this

appeal, the same, on this account also, would not lie.

Mr. I.H.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, when taken through the award impugned and the record, could not point out any

procedural irregularity or legal infirmity having been done by the Commissioner. He, however, in a vain attempt, argued that the interest of 12%

granted by the Commissioner is on higher side by referring to the observations of the Apex Court that, since the Bank rate of interest has come

down considerably ordinarily it should not be more than 9%.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant does not fit in as the compensation

has been awarded to poor labourers who have suffered serious injuries causing extensive disability even more than 50%.

For what has been stated above, there is no merit in these appeals and same are, accordingly dismissed, however, without any costs.

Copy of this order be placed on each file and record be returned forthwith.