Read Time: 05 minutes

An appeal against the award passed by a compensation commissioner maintainable only on substantial question of law in terms of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, held the Supreme Court recently.

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian made this observation while hearing a challenge to an order passed by the Madras High Court in 2013, whereby an appeal filed by the first respondent was accepted on the ground that the Compensation Commissioner at Trichirapalli had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it was the Compensation Commissioner at Cuddalore, who has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

The appellant, one Mayan was working as a worker in the agricultural farm of the respondent, lost his right leg in an accident which got stuck in a Harvesting Machine during the course of employment in 2001.

Compensation Commissioner had thus awarded a sum of Rs. 1,21,997/- with 12% interest.

While holding that an appeal against the said award was maintainable only on a substantial question of law, the top court said,

"But unfortunately, the High Court interfered with the award on the ground of territorial jurisdiction on the make-belief stand that the injured has not pleaded in his claim petition that he was residing within the jurisdiction of the Compensation Commissioner, Trichirapalli."

It was found that the appellant was a resident of Sriram Nagar, Thiruvaiyaru Town and Thanjavour District, falling within the jurisdiction of Trichirapalli, and thus legally the jurisdiction was that of Compensation Commissioner under Section 21(1)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

"We find that the High Court should not have interfered in an appeal filed against the award of the Compensation Commissioner dealing with the injury of amputation of leg suffered by the appellant during the course of employment. The High Court should have heart to alleviate the loss suffered by the appellant but the order passed by the High Court shows total non-application of mind without any compassion to set aside an award of grant of compensation on account of loss of a limb on wholly untenable ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.", added the Bench.

With this view, the Court went on to allow appeal and restore the order of the Compensation Commissioner.

"In addition to the amount already awarded by the Compensation Commissioner, the first respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the appellant as Costs, for depriving him the compensation for the last more than 20 years. The due amount shall be paid within a period of two months from today", further ordered the Court.

Cause Title: Mayan vs Mustafa & Anr.