Back
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
C. Vimeshwara Reddy Electrical Contractor – Appellant
Versus
P Pratap Anr S/o late Venkateswamy – Respondent
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.3
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.
The entitlement of claimants to receive interest on the compensation amount from the date of the accident and the application of established principles relating to the payment of interest on money cl....
The limited jurisdiction of the High Court to examine substantial questions of law only and not to reappreciate evidence or findings of fact.
The judgment established the principle that the High Court's jurisdiction under the Workmen's Compensation Act is confined to examining substantial questions of law only.
The appeal under the Workmen Compensation Act is confined to substantial questions of law, and factual findings by the Commissioner are generally conclusive.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-evaluate evidence or disturb findings unless they are pervers....
The High Court's review under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is confined to substantial questions of law, not factual re-evaluations.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and it cannot re-evaluate factual findings.
The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case, as provided under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
