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-appreciate evidence or disturb factual findings.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company (for short 'the Insurance Company') under section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923) against the judgment and award dated 20.05.2009 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim case No. 71/04 titled as “Mohd Ramzan v. Pawan Sharma & & Ors.”, whereby learned Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 2, 39, 280/- with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of accident i.e. 28.07.2003 as compensation in favour of the respondent-claimant (for short 'the claimant').

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that learned Commissioner wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that as per the DL verification report, (Ex.NA-3) the driver was not having license to drive the said category of vehicle, therefore it was breach of insurance policy. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the findings of the learned Commissioner is per se illegal and unreasonable. So, appeal be allowed and judgment 20.05.2009 passed by learned Commissioner be set aside.

3. Despite service of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. Heard counsel for the appellant 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 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 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 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 under Section 30 of the Act.

7. 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