GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. versus THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 23-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 469 
GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11114-11119of2016) 
NOVEMBER 23, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923: 
A 
B 
s.30 - Appeals - Limited jurisdiction of High Court -
Disability due to accident - Compensation awarded to appellants 
C 
by Workmen s Compensation Commissioner reduced by High Court 
making a fresh assessment with respect to percentage of disability -
On appeal, held: Under the Scheme of the Act, the Workmen s 
Compensation Commissioner is the last authority 011 facts, therefore, 
the High Court had 110 competence to re-appreciate the evidence D 
and record its own findings on percentage of disability for which 
also there was no basis. 
Scope of appeal - Parliament has restricted the scope of 
appeal only to substantial questions of lmv, the Act being a welfare 
legislation. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner 
E 
on the basis of evidence returned a finding on the nature of injury 
and the percentage of disability being purely a question of fact. It 
was not the case of insurance company that the finding was based 
F 
on no evidence at all or that it was perverse. Under Section 
4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the 
percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed by a 
qualified medical practitioner. It was not the case of the 
respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate 
was not a qualified medical practitioner as defined under the Act. 
G 
Thus the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner passed the 
order based on the disability certificate which was duly proved. 
[Para 10][473-D-F] 
1.2 Under the Scheme of the Act, the Workmen's 
H 
469 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The 
Parliament thought it fit to restrict the scope of appeal only to 
substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. 
Unfortunately, the High Court missed this crucial question of 
limited jurisdiction and ventured to re-appreciate the evidence 
B 
recording its own findings on percentage of disability for which 
also there was no basis. The whole exercise made by the High 
Court was not within the competence of the High Court under 
Section 30 of the Act. [Para 11)(473-F-G] 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 11114-
11119of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2012 of the High Court 
of Karnataka Circuit Bench, Dharwad in M. F. A. No. 22543/2009, 
C/W MFA Nos. 22544, 22545, 22546, 2254 7 and 22548 of2009 (WC). 
D 
Manjunath Meled, Ms. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi,Anil Kumar,Advs., 
E 
for the Appellant. 
Harsh Kumar Gautam, Ms. Sumi P. S., Ms. Suman Lata, Binay 
Kumar Das, Advs., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J.: I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the High 
Court whereby the compensation awarded to them has been drastically 
reduced. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and substituted 
F 
its own views with that of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner 
and made a fresh assesment. 
G 
H 
3. By order dated 16.02.2009, the Labour Officer cum Workmen's 
Compensation Commissioner, Division No. II, Bellary passed the 
following order: 
"In considering the employment of the petitioners, documents 
produced before the court and the evidence of the doctor, 
considering the disablement decided by the doctor, and 
considering that the respondent No.2, failed to prove the 
allegations denied by the respondent No.2, I decide that the 
petitioner No.I has suffered 35% of the disablement, the 
GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER 471 
AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC. [KURIAN, J.) 
second petitioner has suffered 35% of the disablement, the 
third petitioner has suffered 35% of disablement, the 4'h 
and 5m petitioners have suffered 40% of disablement each 
and 61h petitioner has suffered 35% of the disablement with 
subsequent loss of earnings and decided the above issue 
No. l in favour of the petitioners." 
4. Accordingly, the appellants were awarded the compensation 
based on their wages. 
A 
B 
5. The Insurance Company challenged the order passed by the 
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, under Section 30(1) of The 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the c 
Act") mainly on the ground that the injuries had not bee

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.