GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC.versusTHE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC.

                       [2016] 9 S.C.R. 469



                 GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC.                               A
                                v.
  THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC.
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 11114-11119of2016)
                      NOVEMBER 23, 2016                                B

        [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
      Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923:
        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.
                                                                       E
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
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]
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 11114-
      11119of2016.
c
           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.,
      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
 E
            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.
            3. By order dated 16.02.2009, the Labour Officer cum Workmen's
      Compensation Commissioner, Division No. II, Bellary passed the
      following order:
G           "In considering the employment ofthe 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
 H
GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER 471
        AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC. [KURIAN, J.)

      second petitioner has suffered 35% of the disablement, the          A
      third petitioner has suffered 35% of disablement, the 4'h
      and 5m petitioners have suffered 40% of disablement each
      and 61hpetitioner has suffered 35% of the disablement with
      subsequent loss of earnings and decided the above issue
      No. l in favour of the petitioners."
                                                                          B
      4. Accordingly, the appellants were awarded the compensation
based on their wages.
      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 been proved before
the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, and therefore, the appellants
were not entitled to the compensation as awarded by the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner. The High Court has clearly held that ...
"the dispute is in respect of the nature of injuries suffered by the
claimants".                                                               D
      6. The relevant consideration by the High Court appears at
paragraph-9 ofthe impugned judgment:
      "9 .... this Court is of the opinion thatthe accident appears
      to be true involving the offending Jory, but, the injuries said     E
      to have suffered by the claimants is not established, in as
      much as, there is no document on record to substantiate
      the same, except the wound certificates issued by the
      Community Health Centre immediately after the accident.
      However, the said document also appears to be fabricated
      and fails in as much as, the X-ray stated in each of these          F
      certificate is not proved by any one of the petitioners before
      the Commissioner. Assuming for a moment that the X-ray
      of the claimant was taken, where it was taken and when it
      was taken is not forthcoming. Admittedly, the Community
      Health Centre, are not provided with x-ray machine so as            G
      to take the X-ray and assess the nature of injuries suffered
      by the claimants. In that view of the matter, this Court feel
      that the entire exercise by the petitioners before the
      Commissioner is to create a make-believe situation to show
      that indeed in the said accident said to have taken place on
                                                                          H
472            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 9 S.C.R.


A           15.8.2008 (sic) they have suffered serious injuries which
            was resulted in permanent disability to whole body of each
            ranging from 35% to 40% resulting in loss of earning
            capacity to equal percentage. In that view of the matter,
            this Court feel that the grounds urged by the Insurance
            Company in these appeals appears to be true and correct
B
            which is required to be upheld by this Court."
             7. The High Court went further to hold that on the basis of the
      available evidence, the disability would only be to the extent of 5% of
      the whole body resulting in 5% of the loss of earning capacity. Paragraph-
      10 of the impugned judgment deals with the issue, which reads as follows:
 c
            "I 0. In that view of the matter, the common judgment and
            order passed by the Tribunal in these petitions before the
            Commissioner is required to be modified having regard to
            the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the claimants
            due to the accident. Accordingly, this Court holds that all
D           the petitioners before the Tribunal have suffered disability
            to the extent of 5% to the whole body resulting in 5% loss
            of earning capacity."
            8. Accordingly, the compensation has been reworked. Thus,
      aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.
 E
            9. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court.
      To the extent, the provision reads as follows:
            "30. Appeals.-( I) An appeal shall lie to the High Court
            from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:-
 F          (a) an order 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
 G          4A;]
            (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half- monthly
            payment;
            (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation
            among the dependants of a deceased workman, or
 H
GOLLA RAJANNA ETC. ETC. v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER 473
       AND ANOTHER, ETC. ETC. [KURIAN, J.]

      disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be                  A
      such dependant;
      (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount
      of :m indemnity under the provisions of sub- section (2) of
      section 12; or
      (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of                         B
      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 oflaw is involved in the appeal and, in
      the case of an order other than an order such as is referred              c
      to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is
      not less than three hundred rupees:"
                                               (Emphasis supplied)
        10. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, having regard
                                                                                D
to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the
percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case
for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all
or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1 )(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage
of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical
practitioner. There is no case for the respondents that the doctor who          E
issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as
defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability
issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.
                                                                                F
         11. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought
it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of
law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed
this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-           G
appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of
disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by
the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under
Section 30 of the Act.
       12. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned common
                                                                                H
474             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016] 9 S.C.R.


A     judgment passed by the High Court is set aside. The order dated
      16.02.2009 of the Labour Officer cum Workmen's Compensation
      Commissioner, Division No. II, Bellary in W.C.A. Nos. 229/2008 to 234/
      2008 is restored.
             13. There shall be no orders as to costs.
B

      Divya Pandey                                            Appeals allowed.