Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Accident - Death due to accident arising out of and in course of employment - Determination of compensation - Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen’s Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought if fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions 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.

JUDGEMENT :

1. The instant appeal is directed against an Award passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Udhampur (for brevity the Commissioner) in a claim petition No. DWC/2001/9 titled as “Desa Singh and Anr. Vs. Daljit Singh and Ors.,” under Workman’s Compensation Act 1923 (for brevity the Act).

2. The facts as are stated in the memo of appeal are that a claim petition came to be filed by respondents 1 & 2 before the Commissioner qua the death of their son namely Sukhbir Singh stated to be a co-driver of Truck bearing No. PB02R-9806 having met with an accident on 17.10.2000 near Udhampur killing the said co-driver.

3. The appellant herein as also the owner/insured are stated to have filed objections to the claim petition. The owner/insured is stated to have denied the employment of the deceased co-driver by having filed an affidavit before the Commissioner.

4. The Commissioner is stated to have framed eight issues placing the onus to prove the same upon the claimants/respondents 1 & 2 herein.

5. It is being stated that the owner/insured respondent No. 4 addressed a letter to the appellant herein denying the deceased to be his employee and that on the basis of said letter as also the investigation conducted by the police concerned, appellant herein denied the employment of the deceased with the owner/insured.

6. It is being further stated that the appellant herein applied to the Commission for issuance of summons to the witnesses, the appellant thought appropriate and necessary to be examined in respect of the defence it had taken and state to have deposited the diet expenses as well and that the said witnesses despite issuance of notices by the Commissioner did not appear as witnesses resulting into closure of the evidence of the appellant company by the Commissioner and consequently passing of impugned Award.

7. The appellant in the memo of appeal has framed as many as eight questions styling the same to be as the questions of law while assailing the impugned Award inter-alia amongst others on the ground that the Award is bad in law in the facts of the case and that the deceased was not a driver but a passenger in the truck therefore, not a workmen, under the Act, and that the Award suffers from procedural latches as no issue has been framed in respect of the defense raised by the appellant company with regard to the employment of the deceased passenger and that the Commissioner has exercised its jurisdiction in excess and that the claim of the claimants has not been genuine and supported with no evidence much less a documentary evidence.

8. Heard learned counsel and perused the record.

9. Before proceeding to deal with the instant appeal, it needs to be reminded that Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923, is a piece of welfare legislation intended to provide immediate relief to an injured workman or the dependants of a deceased workman who is injured or meets his death by an accident arising out of in the course of his employment.

10. The Act lays down the scheme for determination of the compensation payable to the injured workman or dependants of the deceased workman which is less time consuming, hassle free and intended to ensure that the claim is dealt and disposed of with proper dispatch. Underlying object is that the injured workman or dependants of a deceased workman should not be left high and dry without any source to fall back upon.

11. The purpose is to ensure that the payment of compensation determined by the Commissioner under the Act, is paid/disbursed is not thwarted by procedural wrangles and further litigation and frustrating the very purpose of the Act.

12. With the aforesaid aim and object in mind, this court would test the validity or otherwise the impugned Award on the basis of the questions styled as questions of law framed by appellant in the memo of appeal which questions on perusal in essence reiterate the defense taken by the appellant herein before the Commissioner in its objections qua the character of the de