Limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to examine substantial questions of law only.

JUDGMENT

1. A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the impugned judgment and award dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bharatpur (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in claim case No. E.C.A. (N.F.)/D-47/2011 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed and the Insurance company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,99,322/- to the claimant-respondent with interest.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the ground that there is no existence of relationship of employee and employer between the injured and the insured. Counsel further submits that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid license. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation of the claimant-respondent.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant- respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and submits that finding of facts have been recorded by the learned Commissioner while passing the award after appreciating the evidence available on the record. Counsel further submits that finding of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner cannot be re-appreciated by this Court while exercising its powers under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act of 1923') as the appeal is maintainable only on the basis of substantial question of law and no substantial question is involved in the present appeal.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the documents available on record.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this Court.

6. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr." reported in 2017(1) SCC 45. It has been held in Para No. 8 & 10 as under:

'8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows;

30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;]

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12;

or

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees (Emphasis supplied)

10. Under the schment of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court un