LAWS(J&K)-2008-5-49

DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. BASHIR AHMAD SOFI

Decided On May 05, 2008
DIVISIONAL MANAGER Appellant
V/S
Bashir Ahmad Sofi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED of an order passed by prescribed authority under Workmans Compensation Act on 28.8.2007 a claim petition No. 281 -D of 2002 where under an amount of Rs. 2,26,800/ - was awarded to claimant, father of the deceased workman, who had died while in employment of appellant/Corporation, who assail the same through this appeal on the grounds that impugned award is not based on facts and law applicable in the case and is a result of the erroneous view taken by the authority below. During course of his threshold submissions their counsel while elucidating the grounds of appeal has also contend that the deceased could not be defined as a workman for the fact that he was not working in that capacity with appellant/corporation at the relevant time.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Section 30 of "Workmens Compensation Act" providing for appeal against orders of prescribed authority contemplates institution of appeals on substantial questions of law only and not otherwise which by implication suggests that purely factual aspects settled by the competent authority can ordinarily not be reopened in the appeal unless of course the same appear to have caused miscarriage of justice. This restriction on right of appeal appears to be consonant with the legislative intent of "Workmens Compensation Act" essentially formulated for benefit of poor Workman who has thereby been protected against vagaries of callous litigation by crazy employers, unless benefit flow to them against the current of law.

(3.) INSTANTLY , however, the questions of law sought to be formulated in the matter are that competent authority below misread the evidence and failed to record finding relating to status of the deceased who had died "outside the scope of employment" because he was employed with the respondent/corporation only for loading timber, and that relevant materials from evidence were left out be the competent authority. Even on a cursory scrutiny of these questions they essentially appear to relate to the findings of fact arrived at by the competent authority which are sought to be reopened by appellant/corporation on the ground of non -appreciation of evidence regarding factum of employment of deceased workman and nature thereof at the relevant time, consideration whereof would invariably require a re -appreciation of evidence opening the door for reconsideration of the factual aspects already considered by competent authority apparently after appropriate appreciation of evidence on all issues as is revealed by copy of the impugned judgment, which belies the plea of non appreciation of evidence.