- (1.) THE appellants (employer) have preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act of 1923') against the impugned order dated 24th August, 1996, passed by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Churu, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation to the respondent claimants to the tune of Rs.83,192/ only. During the pendency of this appeal, the second respondent died and his name was deleted from the array of respondents.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that respondent claimants filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act of 1923, inter alia, on the ground that their son Jetaram was in employment of Public Health Engineering Department and has died on account of an accident, which has arisen during the course of and out of employment on 10th December, 1994. The learned Commissioner, after considering the evidence and other materials on record, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation aforesaid. Learned counsel, Mr. Y.L. Mathur for Mr. Vimal Mathur, has vehemently argued that the learned Commissioner has not examined the matter in the light of evidence and other materials on record, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that since the claim itself was not laid by the class I heir of the deceased, the learned Commissioner has erred in granting reliefs to the respondent claimants.
(3.) PER contra, Mr. B.R. Chahar, learned counsel for the respondent claimant, has submitted that the learned Commissioner has examined the matter in the light of evidence and other materials on record, and therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. Mr. B.R. Chahar has also argued that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the appeal, and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable under Section 30 of the Act of 1923.;