Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2895 OF 2006
POOSAPPAN ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
G. MANI ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
This appeal has been filed against the order
th
dated 9 July, 2004 passed by the High Court of
Judicature of Madras under Section 30 of The Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923.
It appears that the respondent filed a claim
petition under Section 10 of the Act before the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner alleging that there
was some accident and he claimed compensation for the
same. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner held
that the claimant was not an employee of the appellant
on the date of the accident and also held that no
accident had in fact taken place and the documents
filed by the claimant were fabricated. These are
findings of fact and could not have been interfered
with in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's
2
Compensation Act.
The proviso to Section 30 of the Act states:
“Provided that no appeal shall lie
against any order unless a substantial
question of law is involved in the appeal
and, in the case of an order other than
an order such as is referred to in clause
(b), unless the amount in dispute in the
appeal is not less than three hundred
rupees.”
Thus an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act is like an appeal under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure and not like an appeal
under Section 96 of the Code. Hence, the High Court
could not have interfered with the findings of fact of
the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment
of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Money deposited by the appellant should be refunded.
There shall be no order as to costs.
...................J
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
...................J
3
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY]
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 27, 2009.
4