[2014] 1 S.C.R. 35
SMT. T.S. SHYLAJA
VERSES
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2014) JANUARY 3, 2014.
◼️Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923:s.30, first proviso – Substantial question of law – Appeal before High Court against order of Commissioner awarding compensation – Held: In terms of the 1st proviso, no appeal is maintainable against any order passed by Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved – In the instant case, High Court has neither referred to nor determined any question of law much less a substantial question of law existence whereof was a condition precedent for maintainability of an appeal u/s 30- Inasmuch as the High court remained oblivious of the basic requirement of law for maintainability of an appeal before it and inasmuch as it treated the appeal to be one on facts, it committed an error which needs to be corrected.
➡️Claim petition Death of a driver Commissioner awarding compensation- High Court setting aside the award holding that relationship of employer and employee was not proved-Held: Commissioner had recorded a finding of fact that deceased was employed as a driver by owner of vehicle no matter the owner happened to be his brother-That finding could not be lightly interfered with or reversed by High Court
The order of High Court is set aside and that passed by Commissioner restored.