1. This is employers appeal against an order of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Udhampur, with powers of Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter the Act, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,490/- i. e. Rs. 1, 260/- on account of compensation for permanent partial disability under section 4 of the Act, Rs. 630/-on account of compensation under section 4-A of the Act and Rs. f 300/- on account of cost in favour of the workman respondent.

2. The respondent brought an application against the appellant alleging that while he was working as a Mistry under him in his workshop at Salal, he fell from a height of 24 feet and thereby substained an injury resulting in the fracture of his right leg. He also enclosed with it a medical certificate as well as a Skia-gram showing fracture of his right femur. Notice of this application was given to the appellant who appeared and filed his objection on 19-4-1973 denying either that the respondent was his employee or that he had sustained any injury. During the proceedings, the appellant did not accept the Doctors opinion as contained in his certificate appended to the application showing 40 percent permanent residual disability and insisted for the respondents examination by a Medical Board. This prayer was granted and the respondent was got examined by a board consisting of three Doctors. The board also found that there was fracture of his right femuer, which in its opinion had resulted in only 10 percent of the respondents permanent partial disability. The Commissioner gave opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Whereas the respondent examined a few witnesses the appellant remained content with the statement of his partner Baboo Ram being brought on the record. The Commissioner, on consideration of the evidence, allowed the respondents claim and passed the award impugned in the appeal.

3. Mr. Thakur has assaile the aforesaid award on the grounds that the Commissioner has committed errors of law inasmuch as:

i) he has awarded the sum without giving a finding either that the respondent was employed by the appellant or that the accident resulting in the fracture of his right femuer took place during the course of his employment ;

ii) he has relied upon the certificate issued by Medical Board without orally examining the doctors constituting the same ;

iii) he has passed the impugned award without" observing the Rules framed under the Act, and.

iv) he has misapplied sec. 4-A imposing the penalty

4. No one has appeared to defend the impugned award on behalf of the respondent.

5. So far as the first ground is concerned, I find it total™s baseless. There is a categoric finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner on appreciation of evidence on the record that the respondent had been employed as a Mistry by the appellant and his wages had been fixed at Rs. 13/- per day. He has further found that the accident took place while the respondent was working as a Mistry in the appellants workshop. Whether or not the respondent was employed by the appellant, and whether or not the accident resulting in the facture of his leg took place during the course of his employment, were all questions of fact on which no appeal lay under section 30 of the Act, which clearly restricts the right of appeal to a substantial question of law only. Where on a particular point there is evidence far and against a finding recorded by the Commissioner on taking a particular view of the evidence cannot be questioned howsoever that finding may be, as no question of law can be said to have arisen in such a case. Where, however, a finding of fact is based upon no evidence at all a substantial question of law arises and appeal under section 30 is competent. A similar view appears to have taken by Calcutta High Court in Bhushan Chandra Ghose vs. Geore Henderson and Co A. I. R. 1929 Cal. 774. In the present case the findings recorded by the Commissioner being based upon evidence, are not appreciated the evidence correctly or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document