JASBIR KAUR Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Record received. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants on the point of admission. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation-II, Nahan, in Petition No. 17/2 of 11/07, decided on whether reporters of the local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 24th November, 2011 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in short 'the Act' for the enhancement of compensation amount and apportionment of the same to the extent of 1/3rd share in favour of Smt. Sonia, widow of the deceased being wrong and illegal.

(2.) Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned Counsel for the claimants argued that (i) Smt. Sonia was not widow of the deceased Mithun, driver of respondent No. 1, as the deceased was unmarried, (ii) The learned Commissioner ignored the fact that deceased was a skilled person, he should have been awarded minimum wages of the skilled labour, (iii) interest on the awarded amount was not granted/ allowed from the date of the petition.

(3.) At the very set I would like to say that all the above points raised are contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record to which I shall take up one by one, but before that I would like to say that under Section 30 of the Act, the appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not otherwise because the right to appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with the law in force and no Court has power to order or to enlarge those grounds. Thus, the appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds.