Workmens Compensation Commissioner last authority on facts. Scope of the appeal to High Courts is restricted to substantial questions of law-SC

Workmens Compensation Commissioner last authority on facts. Scope of the appeal to High Courts is restricted only to substantial questions of law-SC

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
1061 (2016) (11) SC

The Grievance:
The appellants were aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court whereby compensation awarded to them had been drastically reduced as against the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

Brief Facts of the Case:

The Labour Officer cum Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (“WCC”), Bellary had passed an order holding that petitioners had suffered disablement up to the extent between 35% to 40% with subsequent loss of earnings. Accordingly, they were were awarded the compensation based on their wages.

However, the Insurance Company challenged the order passed by WCC under Section 30(1) of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (“Act”) mainly on the ground that the injuries had not been proved before the WCC, and therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the compensation as awarded.

The High Court observed that though the accident appeared to be true, but, the injuries said to have suffered by the claimants were not established, in as much as, there was no document on record to substantiate the same, except the wound certificates issued by the Community Health Centre (CHC) immediately after the accident.

The High Court was of the considered view that the document appeared to be fabricated as the X-ray stated in each of these certificate were not proved by any one of the petitioners before the WCC. The High Court observed that admittedly, the CHC, were not provided with x-ray machine so as to take the X-ray and assess the nature of injuries suffered by the claimants.

In view of the above the High Court opined that the entire exercise by the petitioners before WCC was unreliable and the grounds urged by the Insurance Company appeared to be true and correct. Accordingly, the High Court held that on the basis of the available evidence, the disability would only be to the extent of 5% of the whole body resulting in 5% of the loss of earning capacity.

Observations made by the Apex Court:

The Supreme Court observed that the WCC, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability which is purely a question of fact.

According to the Apex Court, there was no case for the insurance company that the finding was based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse.

Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. Again, it was not the case of the Insurance Company that the doctor who issued the disability certificate was not a qualified medical practitioner when WCC had passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the WCC

The Supreme Court observed that under the scheme of the Act, the WCC is the last authority on facts and the scope of the appeal to High Courts is restricted only to substantial questions of law. Thus the whole exercise made by the High Court was not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.

Held:
The appeals were allowed. The judgment passed by the High Court was set aside.