Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Indian Woollen Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Chheharta and another

J.M. Tandon, J.—Raghunath was an employee of Messrs India Wollen Textile Mills (Private) Limited. G. T. Road Chheharta (Respondent No. )(sic) On May 10, 1966, at about 6-45 P. M. he was painting brusshes of the dyeing department. He fell down and died at the spot He was insured with the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Appellant). The Appellant paid Rs 16297 50 to the legal representatives of the deceased by way of insurance benefits. The Appellant applied to the Court under the Employee''s State Insurance Act (hereinafter called ''the Act'') for reimbursement to the extent of Rs. 16297 50 alleging that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the Respondent in as much as safety belt to the deceased bad not been suppliedly by them. The Respondents resisted the application averring that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the deceased himself and not because of any negligence on their part. The safety belt has been provided to the deceased which got loosened resulting n the accident.

2 On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed, out of which Nos 2 and 3 read as under:

Had the Respondents provided the deceased with safety belts and other accessories as alleged ?

If so, did Raghunath Singh died on account of the negligence of the employer ?

The trial Court found both the issues (Nos 2 and 3) in favour of the Respondents and consequently dismissed the application of the Appellant vide order dated December 2, 1972. It is against this order that the present appeal is directed

The learned Counsel fox the Respondents has urged that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed because it does not involve any substantial question of law. In opinion, this contention must prevail.

Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 82 of the Act read:

(1) Save as expressely provided in the Section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employee''s Insurance Court

(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employee''s Insurance Court if it involves substantial question of law

It has been found as a fact by the trial Court that the Respondents had provided the deceased safety belt and other accessories and further the deceased did not die on account on any negligence on the part of the Respondents. These two findings do not involve any substantial question of law. The present appeal is, therefore, not maintainable.

In Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Shri B.S. Kapoor General Manager and Proprietor of Messers is Organo Industries Sonepat (1971) 73 PLR. 695 It was held that an appeal which does not involve any question of law as to the negligence causing the accident resulting in the death of the employees and wherein the decision challenged entirely pertains to the finding of fact, is not competent in view of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act. A similar view was taken in Messrs Bhiwani Textile Mills v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation (1971) 73 P.L.R 807.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.