THOMAS Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It lies on a substantial question of law. Even then, it postulates conclusive findings on evidence with regard to certain jurisdictional facts, with regard to the following aspects:-

(2.) IT is advisable, as it was felt, that the workman need protection as far as possible from hardship arising from accidents due to growing complexity of industry with increasing use of machinery with consequent danger to workmen. The Act provides for cheaper and quicker disposal of disputes relating to compensation through special tribunals than possible under the civil law. The passage of time has paved the way to make the approach of the Courts even widening and has become more and more liberal leaning towards the workmen on considerations of poverty of the workmen on comparative basis. However, there is no substitute for conclusive findings on evidence with reference to the basic jurisdictional facts.

(3.) THE jurisdictional factual conclusions must emerge from the evidence on record and in the process if the material evidence is either wholly ignored or completely misread, the Appellate Court gets duty-bound to examine the evidence itself. Even the erroneous inferences drawn with the liberal attitude adopted by the Trial Authority, such a situation also becomes a cause for interference. It is an error of law apparent on the face of the record of a substantial character as it affects the very nature of liability in law.