The appellate court confirmed that findings based on factual determinations by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act are not subject to appeal unless substantial legal questions arise.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The present First Appeal (FAO) has been instituted by the Appellant assailing the judgment/award dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Angul in E.C. Case No.05 of 2025, as well as the subsequent order dated 31.05.2025, whereby the learned Commissioner rejected the petition filed by the Appellant seeking recall of the judgment dated 05.05.2025 in the said case.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the Appellant, are as follows:

(a) The deceased, Bidesi Nayak, was employed as a driver in a truck bearing Registration No. OD-09-V-1751, owned by Respondent No.6, Sarddar Barik.

(b) On 28.09.2024 at about 6:30 P.M., while the deceased was driving the said truck and proceeding from Khamar side towards Pitiri, a Hywa Truck bearing Registration No. OD-33-E-5659, coming from the opposite direction and allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided head-on with the truck driven by the deceased. Owing to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

(c) Following the accident, Respondent Nos.1 to 5 instituted M.A.C. Case No.120 of 2024 before the learned 1st Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Deogarh, wherein the owner of the offending Hywa Truck (OD-33-E-5659) and its insurer, Reliance General Insurance Company, were arrayed as parties.

(d) While the said M.A.C. proceeding was pending, Respondent Nos.1 to 5 initiated E.C. Case No.5 of 2025 before the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Angul, without disclosing the pendency of the M.A.C. case arising out of the same cause of action.

(e) The learned Commissioner thereafter allowed E.C. Case No.5 of 2025, awarding compensation of Rs.14,81,635/- with 12% penal interest in the event of non-payment within one month.

(f) The Appellant subsequently filed a petition seeking recall of the judgment, alleging that the award had been obtained by suppression and misrepresentation amounting to fraud. The learned Commissioner, however, rejected the recall petition.

(g) Thereafter, the claimants withdrew M.A.C. Case No.120 of 2024 before the learned 1st M.A.C.T., Deogarh, stating that they had already pursued a remedy before the Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act in respect of the same cause of action.

(h) Aggrieved by the award dated 05.05.2025 as well as the subsequent order dated 31.05.2025 rejecting the Appellant’s petition for recall, the Appellant has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

i. The Appellant contended that the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2025 and the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner are contrary to the materials available on record and are liable to be set aside, as they suffer from gross errors apparent on the face of the record and are patently illegal.

ii. The Appellant further contended that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that the applicants, who are Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, had played fraud on the Court by suppressing material facts relating to the filing of M.A.C. Case No.120 of 2024 before the learned 1st M.A.C.T., Deogarh. It was submitted that the applicants, having approached the learned Commissioner seeking compensation, were required to come to the Court with clean hands and disclose all material facts. Their deliberate suppression of a fact that goes to the root of the matter, accordi