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.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants u/s 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923) against the judgment dated 18.08.2017 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Kota (for short ‘learned Commissioner’) in claim case No. J.L.C./F/19/2011 titled as Gopal Sharma & Anr. Vs. Sanjay Pathak & Ors., whereby an amount of Rs.2,08,732/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f 01.06.2006 has been awarded as compensation in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants (for short ‘the claimants’) and penalty to the tune of 20% of the compensation amount has also been imposed upon the non-claimant No.1-Sanjay Pathak.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Commissioner has wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that claimants failed to prove that deceased was employed by appellants. Initially, claim petition was filed against the respondent Nos.3-Sanjay Pathak and 4-Bharat Jhamnani respectively. The said claim petition was ex-parte decreed. After that, ex-parte judgment and decree was set aside and respondent No.4 filed reply to the claim petition in which he stated that deceased was not working under his employment. He also mentioned that he had no relationship with S.T.N. Cable Network and further stated that appellants are the owners of S.T.N. Cable Network, so, appellants were impleaded as a party but no notice under Section 10 of Employees Compensation Act was ever given to them. Claimants failed to submit any document regarding employer-employee relationship between the appellants as also deceased. So, appeal be allowed and judgment dated 18.08.2017 passed by learned Commissioner be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that learned Commissioner rightly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal has been submitted on the findings of facts. In support of his contentions, counsel for the claimant has placed reliance on the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager and Anr. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 and North East Karnataka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment including the documents available on the 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 are not liable to be disturbed by this Court.

6. 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