Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 339 of 1994 Appellant :- Sub Divisional Officer U.P.S.E.B. Respondent :- Smt. Meena Kumari And Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.Srivastava,H.P.Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Km.S.Sirohi
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Km.S.Sirohi, learned counsel for the respondent is absent even in the revised.
2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed filed under Section 30A of the Workmen Compensation Act by Sub Divisional Officer U.P.S.E.B. i.e. appellant being aggrieved by order dated 28.1.1994 passed by Workman Compensation Commissioner, Agra in WC Case No. 5 of 1988 ( Smt. Meena Kumari Versus Sub Divisional Officer U.P. State Electricity Board).
3. The appellant has contended that the deceased was not an employee of the electricity distribution division and he was engaged only as a stopgap arrangement. It is submitted that the respondent was never in employment. The Commissioner has directed the appellant - owner to pay penalty and interest which is also bad in eye of law.
4. The said grounds urged are based on factual data and learned Commissioner has given cogent reasons. The photostat copy of log entries were filed and nothing is proved by the appellant to show that the documents were not pertaining to their department. These are questions of facts and the deceased died out of employment injury.
5. The Apex Court recently in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and this High Court in FAFO 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has held as follows:
"The grounds urged before this Court are in the realm of finding of facts and not a question of law. As far as question of law is concerned, the aforesaid judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Versus Divisional Manager and another (supra) in paragraph 8 holds as follows "the Workman Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation.
Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis."
6. In view of the above, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018/Mukesh
Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 339 of 1994 Appellant :- Sub Divisional Officer U.P.S.E.B. Respondent :- Smt. Meena Kumari And Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.Srivastava,H.P.Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Km.S.Sirohi
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. (In Re:- Delay Condonation Application)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Cause shown is sufficient.
3. Delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.
4. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018/Mukesh