The judgment established the limited scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, emphasizing that appeals can only be based on substantial questions of law.

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘The Act’) against the impugned order dated 30.03.2009 in W.C. No.22 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur (hereinafter be referred to as “Commissioner”).

2. The appellant herein was the Opposite Party No.1 and the respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein were the applicant and Opposite Party No.2, before the learned Commissioner.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. It is a claim of compensation by the applicant who sustained injuries during the course of employment due to electrical shock while attending his duties entrusted by the Opposite Part No.2 under the control of Assistant Divisional Manager, Tadipatri to change the defective meter at M/s. Varalakshmi Slab Polishing Industry at Sajjaladinne. Immediately he was shifted to St. Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore and later shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein his both hands have been amputated upto elbow. A criminal case is registered in Cr. No.34 of 2005 of Tadipatri Rural P.S. He is the sole earning member of the family. He has wife and 3 children depending on his income. He was getting Rs.3500/- per month. At the time of accident, he was 35 years old. Opposite Parties did not respond till the injured approached the Commissioner by filing a petition, claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs.

4. Opposite Party No.1 being a contractor, Opposite Party No.2 being the principal employer filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner.

Issues – Enquiry - Finding

5.(a) Basing on the rival pleadings of both parties, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues.

1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?

2. What was the age of the applicant workman at the time of accident?

3. What are the wages paid/eligible wage to the applicant at the time of accident?

4. What is the amount of compensation payable to applicant?

5. Who are liable to pay compensation?

(b) During the course of enquiry, the applicant himself was examined as AW.1. One Dr.M.Athamaram examined as AW.2 and D.Nagaraju was examined as RW.1. Ex.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the applicant.

(c) Having heard the arguments of both sides and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner awarded Rs.4,15,591/- as compensation with interest 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of realization against both the Opposite Parties.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order impugned, the Opposite Party No.1 being the contractor preferred the present appeal challenging the validity of the order impugned by raising the following substantial questions of law.

1. Whether the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour in entertaining the claim petition and awarding compensation to the Respondent No.1 is legally sustainable and supported by evidence on record?

2. In the absence of any proof that the Respondent No.1 is a workman within the meaning of Workmen’s Compensation Act, whether the Commissioner is not in error in allowing the claim petition on the basis of oral evidence?

3. Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation under the workmen’s compensation Act when there is a dispute that the respondent no.1 is not a workman as defined under the Act?

4. Whether the Commissioner is justified in allowing the claim on the ground that the respondent no.1 is a workman and that the appellant is a principal employer?

5. Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that the appellant is liable to pay compensation for the injury sustained in the accident on the ground that the 1st respondent is engaged by the 2n