Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 281 of 2024 (An appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923) The Manager Legal, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar …. Appellant(s) -versus- Surekha Sahu & Ors. …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Sk. Ruplal, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-03.09.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The appellants in the present appeal are challenging the judgment dated 07.05.2024 passed in E.C. Case No.12 of 2023 by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Angul. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The deceased, aged about 37 years, was engaged as a driver and, on 17.06.2023, at about 11:30 A.M., while performing his duties in the Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No. OR-19-F-6254, suddenly experienced discomfort and became ill. (ii) He was unable to continue driving the vehicle due to the heavy pressure, stress, and strain and was immediately taken to the District Headquarters Hospital, Angul, for treatment, where he was declared dead by the attending doctor. (iii) Following the death of the deceased, the Respondents, as his legal dependents, filed a claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, in E.C. Case No. 12/2023, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-, contending that the death occurred in the course of his employment. (iv) Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Angul, awarded a sum of Rs. 15,94,750/- to the Respondents as compensation, along with interest. (v) Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal, challenging the Commissioner’s order. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The judgment passed by the Commissioner is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the materials on record, and is therefore unsustainable. The Commissioner erred in holding that the deceased was a “workman” as defined under the Employees’ Compensation Act and that there existed an employer-employee relationship with Respondent No. 5, despite the absence of any material on record to substantiate such a finding. Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 (ii) The Commissioner acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that the deceased sustained a sudden illness, when Respondent No. 5 did not produce any documentary evidence, such as employment registers or wage records, to establish the existence of a master-servant relationship. Further, the deceased was not registered under the Motor Transport Workers Act, which undermines the finding of workman status. (iii) Respondent No. 5 was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the incident, having transferred ownership to one Biswamber Sahu prior to the date of the incident, as confirmed by RTO records. Accordingly, there was no question of employer liability, and the statements relied upon by the Commissioner, including those of a previous owner unconnected to the matter, are irrelevant and inadmissible. (iv) The Appellant also submits that the Commissioner failed to consider material documentary evidence, including the FIR lodged by Bikash Pradhan, who admitted that the deceased was employed as his driver, and other records collected from the Police Station, RTO, and hospital. The rejection of the Appellant’s application to adduce evidence through an investigator further resulted in a decision based on incomplete and, at times, fabricated documents. (v) The Commissioner erred in determining the age and monthly income of the deceased in the absence of any documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of income, compensation ought to have been calculated based on the minimum wages prevailing on the date of the incident. Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 (vi) The direction to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days, along with interest at 12% per annum and an additional penalty in case of default, is unsustainable. Under the terms of the insurance policy, there was no contractual obligation to pay interest, and the Commissioner’s order is contrary to the settled position of law as recognized by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 4. (i)
Legal Reasoning
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The learned Commissioner, after considering the evidence, including examination of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, and the documents exhibited under Exts. 1 to 11 to establish vehicle ownership, validity of insurance, employment, and wages of the deceased, rightly awarded Rs. 15,94,750/- as compensation along with simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment. (ii) The Commissioner rightly directed the insurer to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days for disbursement to the claimants, failing which it would carry interest at 12% per annum from 05.05.2024 until actual payment. (iii) The substantial questions of law raised by the insurer, namely, the ownership of the vehicle, employer-employee relationship, and imposition of interest, have already been addressed. Ownership and employment were established through documentary evidence, including the R.C. Book, fitness certificate, and R.T.O. records, as well as the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, corroborated by admissions of the Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 owner in his written statement. The imposition of interest is justified in law. IV. FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION- CUM- DIVISIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ANGUL: 5. 6. 7. 8. The Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Angul, by judgment dated 07.05.2024 in E.C. Case No. 12 of 2023, allowed the claim application filed under Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence, including the employer’s admission and documents such as the driving licence, employment- cum-salary certificate, FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and insurance policy, the Commissioner held that the deceased was a “workman” within the meaning of the Act and that his death arose out of and in the course of employment. The age of the deceased was accepted as 37 years and his monthly wage as ₹15,000/-, being the statutory ceiling notified by the Central Government. Applying Section 4(1)(a) of the Employees’ Compensation Act and the relevant age factor of 192.14, the Commissioner computed the compensation at ₹14,41,050/-, and further directed payment of interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident (17.06.2023) till realization. The total amount payable was thus assessed at ₹15,94,750/-, to be deposited by the insurer within 30 days, failing which it would carry further interest at 12% per annum from 08.05.2024 till actual payment. V. THE COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 10. 11. The present appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The proviso to Section 30 makes it clear that no appeal shall lie against an order of the Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is involved. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 30 is, therefore, limited to questions of law. The Court cannot reappreciate the evidence or disturb findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law. 12. Section 30 contemplates appeals against orders awarding or disallowing compensation, awarding interest or penalty under Section 4, refusing redemption of half-monthly payments, or providing for distribution of compensation among dependents. Consequently, appeals under Section 30 are intended to address legal infirmities rather than factual disputes, which fall squarely within the purview of the Commissioner. 13. In North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha1, the Supreme Court elucidated the scope of Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The relevant extract is as follows:: “9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly 1 (2019) 11 SCC 514. Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 salary of the employee, how many are the dependants of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident, etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim 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.” 14. The Appellant in the instant case has raised the following questions as substantial questions of law: A. Whether the Commissioner was justified in concluding that the deceased was a workman under the Act and that the death arose out of and in the course of employment. B. Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the deceased was a workman of Respondent No-5, particularly given the alleged transfer of vehicle ownership prior to the incident. C. Whether the Commissioner was justified in assessing the age and monthly income of the deceased in the absence of documentary evidence. D. Whether the Commissioner was justified in directing payment of interest in the main order, particularly when there is no finding regarding compliance with Section 10-A of the Act. Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 E. Whether the Commissioner was justified in directing further interest and penalty for delayed payment under the main order. 15. A careful examination of these points shows that they are essentially questions of fact, not substantial questions of law. They require the appreciation of witness statements, documentary records, and the weighing of conflicting contentions, all of which are functions exclusively within the domain of the Commissioner. None of these questions involve interpretation of statutory provisions or principles of law that would give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 30. The Court’s jurisdiction on appeal is therefore limited, and these factual issues cannot form the basis of interference. 16. As such, a careful examination of the pleadings, evidence, and documents demonstrates that the Commissioner thoroughly considered all relevant material, including employer admissions, statements of witnesses, and documentary evidence such as the driving licence, employment-cum-salary certificate, FIR, inquest report, post- mortem report, R.C. Book, and insurance policy. On this basis, the Commissioner concluded that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act and that his death arose out of and in the course of employment. 17. The Appellant’s contentions regarding the alleged absence of an employer-employee relationship, purported transfer of vehicle ownership, and lack of documentary evidence concerning the deceased’s age and income have been examined in detail. The findings of the Commissioner are well-supported by the evidence. The FIR and Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 employer admissions corroborate employment, the RTO and insurance records establish vehicle ownership and coverage, and the statutory ceiling of ₹15,000 per month along with the relevant age factor has been correctly applied in computing compensation. The factual record therefore fully supports the Commissioner’s conclusions. 18. Moreover, challenges to the award of interest, including additional interest in case of delayed payment, are without merit. Sections 4 and 4A of the Act empower the Commissioner to direct payment of interest on compensation. The imposition of interest and further direction for delayed payment is entirely within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and conforms with established law. 19. The evidence further indicates that the deceased suffered sudden illness and death while performing his duties, and that such death arose out of and in the course of employment. The Commissioner correctly relied upon the available medical, post-mortem, and inquest reports, together with witness statements, to arrive at this conclusion. 20. Having carefully considered the entire record, the submissions of learned counsel, and the relevant statutory provisions, it is evident that the Appellant’s contentions do not raise any substantial question of law. The points raised relate primarily to factual issues and the appreciation of evidence, which are squarely within the domain of the Commissioner. VI. CONCLUSION: 21. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the Appellant’s contentions, including the alleged lack of employer-employee relationship, purported transfer of vehicle ownership, assessment of age and wages, Page 9 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Oct-2025 18:58:02 and direction of interest and penalty, do not raise any substantial question of law. These points are essentially questions of fact and evidence appreciation, which fall squarely within the domain of the Commissioner. 22. The Commissioner’s findings are based on admissible and credible evidence, including employer admissions, statements of witnesses, and documentary records such as the driving licence, employment-cum- salary certificate, FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, R.C. Book, and insurance policy. The law has been correctly applied to the facts, and there is no material irregularity, perversity, or illegality in the impugned order. 23. 24. The appeal is devoid of merit and is consequently dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October, 2025/ Page 10 of 10