1. This appeal is directed under section 30 of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 against the award passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jammu by virtue of which the appellant was held liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 58,934.00 to respondent.

2. Respondent admittedly being the widow of Mr. Sham Singh who admittedly was employed as Goods Booking Clerk in the appellant-Kohli Transport Co. It was alleged by the respondent that on 24.2.93 her husband was sent to Batote by his employer appellant on some duty where on the morning of 25.2.93, he was found dead on the road side. FIR was lodged by two drivers namely Raj Kumar and Vijay Kumar who too were under the employment of appellant and were sent by the appellant with the truck because some and there truck of the appellant had met with an accident at Batote. These two drivers confirmed of their employer was also sent on duty to Batote. However, three issues were framed by the trial court and it was held that the deceased Sham Singh husband of respondent died during the course of employment. Regarding wages of the deceased, respondent claimed that the wages of deceased were Rs. 1500/- per month, but the appellant urged that his wages were only 800/- per month. The court on the basis of Rs. 800/- awarded compensation of Rs. 58,934/-. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged before me firstly that the deceased on the date of 24.2.93 was not in the employment of appellant. Secondly, he had exposed himself by his own imprudent act which the learned counsel has explained that the deceased had consumed excessive alcohol and had exposed himself on the road side in the cold season which was the cause of his death for which the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. In support of his arguments he has referred the following authorities: -

1) Mackinnon Mackenjix and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mehmood Issak (1969 ACJ 422 (SC)

2) Steel Authority of India vs. Kanchanbah Mohanty (1995 (1) ACJ 270 (para-4)

3) Hyderabad Steel Tubes Vs. Akhtar Begum (1997 ACJ 1011)

4) 1972 (2) Lab. LJ 598 (Rajasthan)

5) 1984(2) ACC 513(518) 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that no substantial point of law is involved which is requirement of sec.30 of Workmens Compensation Act, so no appeal can lie. 2ndly, he has contended that he has succeeded in proving that the deceased was in the employment of the appellant on the date of the accident of death which according to him has no nexus with the employment. He has relied on the following authorities: -

1) Leela Devi vs. Ram Lal Rahu (II (1988) ACC 617)

2) State of Rajasthan vs. Kanta (I (1990) ACC 181)

3) Raveendran vs. Semavally (I (1996) ACC 172(DB)

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have given my thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced before me. Contention of learned counsel for respondent that no substantial question of law is involved so the appeal u/s 30 of Workmens Compensation Act cannot lie because question whether the deceased was in the employment or not on the date of accident is squarely a question of fact. According to the learned counsel, labour court has resolved the controversy on the basis of evidence so the appellate court cannot go into it. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal can lie only if there is a substantial question of law involved. There are not two opinions about it. However, in this case wherein meager evidence has been adduced, the court has got the power to go into it whether the findings arrived at by the trial court are in accordance with law or not. In the present case, only widow has come into the witness box from the side of respondent and appellant has examined the Manager, so the evidence led in this case is meager. In such circumstances, the appellate court can certainly go into the evidence and see whether the findings are correct. This view is fortified by Steel Authority of India vs. Kanchanbala Mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document