27 October 2009
Supreme Court
Download

POOSAPPAN Vs G.MANI

Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-002895-002895 / 2006
Diary number: 22738 / 2004
Advocates: C. K. SASI Vs M. A. CHINNASAMY


1

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  

dated  9th 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

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

3

         [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY]

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 27, 2009.

4

4