CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. AB MAJID MIR
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Ab Majid Mir
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award and judgment dated 24.05.2005 passed by Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act (Kashmir Division) Srinagar, in claim petition titled as Abdul Majid Mir
v. Chief Engineer and another, which shall be hereinafter, referred to as
impugned award, whereby and where -under an award of Rs.2,47,854/ - came to
be passed in favour of respondent No.1 (claimant).
(2.) IN order to maintain appeal against the award passed by Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act, a substantial question of
law must be involved in the memo of appeal, otherwise appeal is not
maintainable. It is profitable to reproduce proviso to Section 30 of the
Workmens Compensation Act, herein, which reads as under: -
"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:"
(3.) THE question is whether any substantial question of law is involved in the lis or not?
In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case herein.
Respondent No.1 filed a claim petition on 10th August, 2004 with the averments that he was performing his duties as assigned to him in the Jawahar Nagar area and due to electric shock he sustained multiple burn injuries which resulted in amputation of his left hand and fore -arm. FIR came to be lodged.
Appellant and other respondent, i.e. non -applicants in the claim petition filed objections in opposition to the claim and following
two issues were framed in the case by the Commissioner: -
"1. Whether accident arose during and in the course of petitioners employment with the respondents? (OPP/OPD). (2) What were the wages of the petitioner and age at the time of accident? (OPP/OPD)."
Following facts are admitted.
1. The claimant was in the employment of the appellant and other respondent i.e. non -applicants in the claim petition at the relevant point of time when he sustained injuries. 2. The sustaining of multiple burn injuries had resulted into amputation of left hand and fore -arm of respondent No.1. Keeping in view the above said facts, the finding returned on issue no.1 is legally correct.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.