I'he Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of execution of the Award passed in W.C.No.25l07 by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad, dt.19.06.2015 inclusive of disbursement of the amount deposited by this petitioner company pending appeal. Counsel forthe Appellant : Sri A V K S Prasad Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Sri S Surender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE WSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDIIAN RAO CItlA.No.632 of 2O1G ORDER: The present appeal is fired under section 30 of Employee's Compensation Act, assailing the order in w'c'No'115 of 2oor dated 19.06.20ls, passed by Deputy Commissrioner of Labour, Adilabad. 2- Aplcellant is the o.p.No.2. Respondent Nos. r and 2 are the applicants and respondent No.3 is the o.p.No.1 in W.C.No.2 5 of 2OOT . 3- Learned counser for the appelrant submits that the learned authority failed to appreciate the facts that the employee was not in the emproyment or discharging his employment duties under his master at the time of accident and the cc'mmissioner failed to look into the counter filed by o.P.No' 1 in w.c.No.2s of 2oor that he did not admit that the victim died in the course of his emproyment while driving his; tractor, it is only an after cafl and developed version causing ross to the exchequer of the insurance compa.ny and that the victim was going to his house on the directions of his master, prayed to allow the appeal. 2

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.l aad 2-applicants submits that no substantial question of law is made out in the appeal and the order passed by thg Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad, does not require interference of this Court.

5. Respondent Nos.l and 2-applicants have liled claim application under Section 22 of Workmen's compensation Act, 1923, r/w.Rule 20 of Workmen's Compensation (A.P.) Rule, 1953. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased N.Narayana, S/o. Pothalingu, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Tractor Driver bearing No.AP-1-G-2536 owned by respondent No.3-opposite party No.l and insured with the appellant-opposite party No.2, who died in the motor accident which took place on 03.01.2007 at about 8.3O PM, near Pusai Village on NH-7 road under limits of P.S.Jainath of Aditabad l-)istrict. The deceased Narayana was earning Rs.4,OOO/- per month and prayed to award compensation of Rs.5,00,OOOl- in total with interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of accident, till the date of the closure and also by awarding cost. 6 Respondent No.3-O.P.No.1, filed counter and admitted tlre accident, it is further stated that on his \= + 1".-' 3 instructions, the deceased went to have dinner and while returning back to the work place to transport cotton bales, unfortunately he met with an accident and the deceased was paid Rs.3,500/- per month, Rs.75/- towards batta.

7. ' Apprellant-O.P.No.2 filed counter and denied the accident zmd further stating that there is no relationship of employer and employee and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8. The Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the deceased died on 03.01.2007 during the course and out of his employment under the employment of OP1. 2l If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased and 3) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependent of the deceased.

9. Resprondsnt No.l-applicant is examined as AWl, got marked Exs.Al to A.9. Respondent No.3-O.p.No.1 is examined as RW1, appellant-O.P.No.2 is examined as RW2 and got merked Ex.R1.

10. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad, has allowed the o.p. Iiled by respondent Nos.l and 2-applicants holding that the opposite parties are 4 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicants (respondent Nos.l and 2 herein) for the death of the deceased workmen who died in the accident thaj occurred on 03.01.2007 and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,638/- with advocate fee of Rs.1;O00/-, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order along with interest @ 9o/o per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of liling the case, till the date of the order. 1 1. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.

12. Now the point for consideration is : whether the appellant has made out any case to set aside the impugned order and if so, if any substantial question of law is made out?

13. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the Appeal is confined only to examine the substantial question of law arising in the case.

14. Substantial question of law means that the point must be one that can be reasonably discussed and would have a significant bearing on the decision if answered in either way and. the question must have a significant impact -r '\r 5 on the cilses final outcome. If the answer to tJre question, whether yes or no would substantially change the decision then it is considered as a substantial question of law.

15. To establish the employer-employee relationship, evidence is used to show the existence of crucial factors like the power to hire, the power to pay wages, the power to dismiss and the power to control the individual,s work. Court will oniy interfere with findings on this issue if there is a complete lack of evidence or if the finding is obviously erroneouti or perverse.

16. 1. 'I'he Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha - 2OL9 ACJ 29 observed at Para Nos.9 and 10 which reads as under: "9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settlec. principle, that the question as to whether the emplo;lee met with an accident, whethef the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out o,' an employment, how and in what manner the accide:rt occurred, who was negligent in causing the accide::rt, r,r'hether there existed any relationship of employee and errployer, what was the age and monthly salary of the emplo5,ee, how many are the dependants of the deceased emplol'ee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any in,surance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the in(:ident, etc., are some of the material issues which arise f<rr the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim 6 petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the lindings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact."

16.2. The Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna and Others Vs. Divisional Manager - 2Ol7 ACJ 1 observed at Para No.1 1 which reads as under : " I 1. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authorit5l on facts, 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-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 3O of the Act".

17. The learned Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad, in its order at Page-3 discussed the evidence led by the parties i.e., AWl, RWI and RW2 and held that deceased NaraJrana died during the course of his employment on 03.01.2OOT and further held that O.P.Nos.l and 2 (respondent No.3 herein and appellant herein) are liable to pay compensation. In so far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the tribunal has taken the wages @ Rs.4,000/- per month .*! ,.- t"/ 7 which is paid py O.P.No.l-respondent No.3 herein, relying on the m:.nimum rates of wages fixed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.81 dt.O2.l2.2OOO, Of LET & F Dept & VDA from time to t-me and the monthly wages of the tractor driver was Rs.4,056/- per month and same amount is taken for the purSrose of calculating the same. The formula calculatecl tribunal 4O56 x scr/ 100 x 197.06 = 3,99,638.

18. Learned Commissioner has appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties by taking into consideration Exs.Al to A9, wit.h that of the evidence of RWl (respondent No.3 herein) and rightly awarded the compensation.

19. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court stated supra, apyrellant has not made out any substantial question of law ancl the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad, does not require interference of this Court. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid on merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

20. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without cost. 8 Interim orders if any, stands vacated, miscellaneous applications stands closed. SD'. P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The commissioner for Employees compensation GommissionerofLabour,Adilabad.(Withrecords) 2. Onb CC to Sri A V K S Prasad, Advocate IOPUC] 3 One CC to Sri S Surender Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies DUPSL Yv OFFICER and DePutY HIGH COIJRT DATED:1411012025 ORDER CMA.No.6:12 ot 2016 litE S 7 1 [[B 2 t'/ O ) t * DISMISSING THE C.M.A. WITHOUT COST crflA &r*