The limited jurisdiction of the High Court to examine substantial questions of law only and not to reappreciate evidence or findings of fact.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) u/s 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923) against the judgment dated 25.06.2015 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar (for short ‘the learned Commissioner’) in claim case No. W.C.C.F-6/2014 titled as Smt. Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad & Ors., whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.7,69,825/- with interest @ 12% P.A. in favour of the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 4 (for short ‘the claimants’) with effect from the date of accident i.e. 10.08.2013 and Rs.5,000/- has also been awarded as funeral expenses.

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Commissioner has wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. He further submits that the there is no evidence to the effect that deceased died during the course of employment. He further submits that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the respondent No.5. He further submits that there was no documentary evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. So, appeal be allowed and judgment 25.06.2015 passed by learned Commissioner be set aside.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment including the documents available on the record.

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

5. In the opinion of this Court also, 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. (supra):

"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 lumpsum 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 scheme 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 reappreciate 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 under Section 30 of the Act.

6. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Transport Corporation (supra):

"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the