Divisional Manager SFC Baramulla vs Tahira Begum & Ors.

This is an appeal filed under provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short Act of 1923) against the award passed by Assistant

Labour Commissioner Baramulla on file No. 273D decided on 15th May 2007. The authority under Workman's Compensation Act has passed an

award against the appellant for payment of an amount of Rs.4.14 lacs in favour of legal dependents of the deceased workman and the respondent

No.3, appellant herein, was directed to deposit the awarded amount within a period of thirty days.

The brief facts of the case are that one ""Samander Khan"" who by profession was a driver was driving platform (vehicle) which was hired by the

contractor who was engaged by appellant herein to carry the stocks of timber. During the course of his employment, Samander Khan driver died

because he met with an accident.

The claim petition was filed by widow of the deceased Samander Khan before the Authority under Workman's Compensation Act. Notice was

issued to the parties in the said claim petition and respondents submitted their objections.

On 28th August 2004, issues were framed which are reproduced as under:

Whether the deceased workman Samander Khan was a driver of Truck No: 9844JKB which met an accident on 1022002.? (OPA/OPD(3).

Whether the truck was owned by the respondent No. (1) and hired by the respondent No. (2) for carriage of timber of the respondent No.

(3).? (OPA/OPD(3).

Whether truck bearing No.9844JKB was covered with 3rd party insurance Scheme ? OPD (3).

Whether the petitioner has any cause of action against respondents 1 to 3. OPD

Whose liability is to pay compensation whether the respondents 1, 2 or 3 OPD.

Five issues have been framed and parties were directed to adduce evidence in support of their case. The Authority under Workman's

Compensation Act, after appreciating the evidence and material placed on record, decided the issues in favour of the claimants by passing the

impugned award. It was directed that respondent No.3 shall deposit the award amount within thirty days. Aggrieved of the said award the present

appeal is filed.

Section 30 of the Act of 1923, deals with filing of appeals and is reproduced as under:

Appeals(1) An appeal shall lie to the High court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:

(a) an order as awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a

claim in full or in part for a lump sum;

(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4 A;

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half monthly payment;

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased workman, or disallowing claim of a person

alleging himself to be such dependent;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of subsection (2)of section 12; or

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to

conditions:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other

than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided further

that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the

Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties:

[Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the

Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him. the amount payable under the order appealed against.]

(2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixth days.

(3) The provisions of section 5 of [the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall be applicable to appeals under this section.

The first Proviso appended to Sec. 30 of the Act of 1923 provides that no appeal shall lie against any order unless substantial question of law is

involved in the appeal. The Proviso is couched in negative language and mandate of the legislature is loud and clear. The Act of 1923 is a beneficial

legislation enacted for the benefit of the Labour class of the Society. In a democratic country like ours, the labour class along with like classes

usually form the backbone of the economy of country. Since labour class usually belong to the lowest strata of the society as such is susceptible to

more exploitation.

The legislature in their wisdom have accordingly enacted laws to safeguard the legal interests of this class and courts are under Statutory and

Constitutional obligation to enforce the laws so as to achieve the goals and purposes underlying such laws.

Right to file an appeal is a Statutory right and can be filed by person on whom right is conferred by Statute and can be filed only when Statutory

conditions are fulfilled.

Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is also designed to achieve the purpose underlying the Act of 1923. An appeal, can be filled only when

substantial question of law is involved in the matter, otherwise no appeal shall lie, this is the mandate of Legislature.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it transpires from the record that no substantial question of law is available to be formulated in

the attendant facts and circumstances of the case.

12.1 have considered the impugned judgment and the material on record. The authority has rightly considered evidence and has passed the award

in accordance with the law governing the field.

While making the submissions Mr. M. Aijaz learned counsel for the appellant, referred to the judgment dt. 5.5.2008 passed in CIMA No.

205/2007 Divisional Manager v. Bashir Ahmed Sofi 2009 (1) JKJ HC236 in which the authority under Workman's Compensation Act had

passed an award in favour of the dependants of deceased, a Coolie by profession and appeal was dismissed. Mr. Aijaz in his fairness conceded

that present case is also covered by the said judgment.

The proceedings in earlier case which culminated in passing of award, also eminated from same accVcnt, in which the bread earner of

claimants in this case died. The decision in said appeal also covers this case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The authority is directed to satisfy the award within a period of two weeks from the date copy of this order is served upon him. Let a copy of

this order be immediately transmitted to the authority.