JAIPUR: A single bench of the Rajasthan high court refused to entertain an appeal against a judgement that was based on factual findings in a workmen compensation case. The court said that when no substantial question of law is involved, the high court cannot venture and re-appreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The single bench of justice Narendra Singh Daddha gave this judgment while hearing a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by Union India Insurance Company Limited through their Jaipur-based manager.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Advocate Om Prakash Gupta appearing on behalf of the company appealed to the court to set aside a judgment passed by workmen Compensation Commissioner, Ajmer in the case of Ranchhor Das vs. Mohemmed Suleman and others. The commissioner had issued an award of Rs.6.42 lakh payable with an interest of 12% in favour of the respondents and against the appellant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The counsel for the appellant pleaded that the commissioner wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants as there was no evidence that the alleged accident took place and who had seen it. He also submitted there was no evidence that the deceased was employed as a khalasi by the owner of the insured vehicle. The alleged incident took place on August 9, 2010, but the\u00a0 FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of 23 days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Based on these facts advocate Gupta pleaded that appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Ajmer on August 14, 2012, be set aside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The counsel for the respondents however pleaded that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal and it had been submitted on the findings of facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relying on the supreme court judgement in the case of\u00a0 “Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr\u201d and some other cases, the court said that the commissioner was the last authority on facts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unless there was a question of public importance and there was no final interpretation available while the substantial question of law is arising, the appeal under the Workmen’s Compensation Act cannot be entertained, the court said.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt is the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and re-appreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties. This Court finds no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly upholds these findings. Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal,\u201d the court said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court dismissed the appeal. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
“When no substantial question of law is involved, the high court cannot venture and re-appreciate the evidence.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":10512,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[120],"yoast_head":"\n