Limited jurisdiction of the High Court in appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

ORDER

1. A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the impugned judgment and award dated 05.12.2012 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi, Rajasthan (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in WCC/F//51/2011 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.3,96,165/- to the claimant-respondent with interest.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent filed a claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming compensation on account of death of one Kalulal who died in the road accident occurred on 26.01.2008. It was also stated in the claim petition that the death occurred during the course of the employment. Hence, the claimant is entitled to get compensation as the deceased was working as a 'Khalasi1 and drawing salary of Rs.4750/- per month.

3. The owner of the vehicle did not appear before the learned Commissioner and hence, ex parte proceedings were initiated against him but the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and raised objection that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the insured and the deceased and no notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1923 was given. Hence, the claim petition was not maintainable.

4. After hearing the parties, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition directing the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.3,96,165/- with interest to the claimant-respondent.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed an error while allowing the claim petition as the claimant-respondent has failed to establish the relationship of employee and employer. Hence, the provisions of the Act of 1923 were not attracted. Learned counsel further argued thgat there was non compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 10 of the Act of 1923, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment of compensation to the claimant-respondent.

6. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and the documents available on record.

7. 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.

8. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Ann" 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.-(l) 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 dto 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), unles