# Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Mohd. Raza (Ins. 21/1153432)

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 491
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-25
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 432 of 1993
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/employees-state-insurance-corporation-v-mohd-raza-ins-21-1153432-48547
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Employees' State Insurance
Act, 1948 - Medical Board issued a
certificate awarding Nil loss of earning
capacity to the injured-claimant - injured
suffered employment injuries on his left
eye - Judge, Employees Insurance Court in
Appeal allowed the appeal upturning the
decision of the medical board - Held -
finding of fact is that the injured was an
employee who had sustained employment
injury and was incapacitated to the tune
of 30%, percentage of injury was decided
by the Commissioner - Court cannot
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interfere unless there is a question of law
involved - substantial questions of law
framed by the Insurance Company are the
questions of fact - Appeal Dismissed (Para
4, 7, 8 )
Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Mohd. Raza (Ins. 21/1153432)
491
22. Considering the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of A.V. Padma Vs. Venugopal
reported in 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442, the
order of investment is not passed because
applicants/claimants are neither illiterate
nor rustic villagers.

23. In view of the above, the
appeal is partly allowed.

24. Fresh award be drawn
accordingly by the Tribunal as per
modification made herein.

20. In view of the ratio laid down
by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case
of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani vs. The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
[2007(2) GLH 291] and this High Court in
total amount of interest, accrued on the
principal amount of compensation is to be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance
company/owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount
under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source'
as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest
does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any
financial year, registry of this Tribunal is
directed to allow the claimants to withdraw
the
amount
without
producing
the
certificate from the concerned Income- Tax
Authority. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna
and others Vs. Hari Singh and another)
and in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of
2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola
Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co.
Ltd.)
decided
on
19.3.2021
while
disbursing the amount.
21. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Privae Ltd. vs. Union of India
and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as
the purpose of keeping compensation is to
safeguard the interest of the claimants.
Since long time has elapsed, the amount be
deposited in the Saving Bank Account of
claimant(s) in a nationalized Bank without
F.D.R.
----------
(2022)05ILR A491
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

FAFO No. 432 of 1993

Employees State Insurance Corporation
 ...Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Raza (Ins. 21/1153432)
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajesh Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Neeraj Agarwal, Sri R.K. Mishra

Civil Law - Employees' State Insurance
Act, 1948 - Medical Board issued a
certificate awarding Nil loss of earning
capacity to the injured-claimant - injured
suffered employment injuries on his left
eye - Judge, Employees Insurance Court in
Appeal allowed the appeal upturning the
decision of the medical board - Held -
finding of fact is that the injured was an
employee who had sustained employment
injury and was incapacitated to the tune
of 30%, percentage of injury was decided
by the Commissioner - Court cannot
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interfere unless there is a question of law
involved - substantial questions of law
framed by the Insurance Company are the
questions of fact - Appeal Dismissed (Para
4, 7, 8 )
Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Golla Rajanna Etc. Vs Divisional Manager &
anr., 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC)

2. North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation Vs Smt. Sujatha Civil Appeal
No.7470 of 2009 decided on 2.11.2018

3 E.S.I.C. Vs S. Prasad) . F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993
decided on 26.10.2017

4. Mayan Vs Mustafa & anr., 2022 ACJ 524

5. Salim Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & anr.,
2022 ACJ 526

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

Order On Civil Misc. Restoration
Application

For the reasons disclosed in the
affidavit filed in support of the restoration
application,
cause
shown
constitutes
sufficient cause, consequently, restoration
application
is
allowed.
Order
dated
5.1.2012, dismissing the appeal is recalled
and the appeal is restored to its original
number.

Order On Appeal

1. Appeal is restored to its original
number.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
challenges the judgment and order dated
22.2.1993 passed by Judge, Employees
Insurance Court, Kanpur in Appeal No.250
of 1992 whereby the Court below had
allowed the appeal upturning the decision
of the medical board.

3. Brief facts are that the Medical
Board issued a certificate awarding Nil loss
of earning capacity to the injured-claimant.
The injured suffered employment injuries
on his left eye. The employment injury was
not in dispute. What is in dispute is the
grant of compensation considering his
employment injury to 30%. Can this be
considered to be bad and perverse finding
and question of law? The answer is no as it
is a finding of fact and not law.

4. The undersigned is fortified in
the aforesaid view as the appeal under
Workmen Compensation Act/Employees
State Insurance Act has to be viewed very
seriously in view of the judgment in Golla
Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager
and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC). The
finding of fact is that the injured was an
employee who had sustained employment
injury and was incapacitated to the tune of
30%.

5. This Court is further supported
in its view by the decision of the Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009
North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on
2.11.2018 wherein it has been held by the
Court as under:

 "15. Such appeal is then heard on
the question of admission with a view to
find out as to whether it involves any
substantial question of law or not. Whether
the appeal involves a substantial question
of law or not depends upon the facts of
each case and needs an examination by the
5 All. Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Mohd. Raza (Ins. 21/1153432)
493
High Court. If the substantial question of
law arises, the High Court would admit the
appeal for final hearing on merit else would
dismiss in limini with reasons that it does
not involve any substantial question/s of
law.
 16. Now coming to the facts of
this case, we find that the appeal before
the High Court did not involve any
substantial question of law on the
material questions set out above. In
other
words,
in
our
view,
the
Commissioner decided all the material
questions arising in the case properly on
the basis of evidence adduced by the
parties and rightly determined the
compensation
payable
to
the
respondent. It was, therefore, rightly
affirmed by the High Court on facts.

17. In this view of the matter,
the findings being concurrent findings
of fact of the two courts below are
binding on this Court. Even otherwise,
we find no good ground to call for any
interference on any of the factual
findings. None of the factual findings
are found to be either perverse or
arbitrary or based on no evidence or
against any provision of law. We
accordingly uphold these findings."

6. This Court, recently in
F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S.
Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has
followed the decision in Golla Rajana
(Supra) and 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 reappreciate the evidence and recorded its
own findings on percentage of disability
for which also there is no basis."

7. A recent decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Mayan Vs. Mustafa
and another, 2022 ACJ 524 also holds
that the Court cannot interfere unless
there is a question of law involved and
finding of fact is sought to be assailed.
In our case the injury was during the
course of employment. The percentage
of
injury
was
decided
by
the
Commissioner. The judgment of Apex
Court in Salim Versus New India
Assurance Co.Ltd. and another, 2022
ACJ 526 will also not permit this Court
to interfere in the well
reasoned
judgment of the Commissioner.

8. In view of the above, the appeal
fails and is dismissed. The so called
questions
of
law
framed
by
the
Insurance
Company
are
answered
against it. In fact the substantial
questions
of
law
raised
are
the
questions of fact.

9. Interim relief, if any, shall
stand vacated forthwith.

10. As this is an appeal of the
year 1993, all the amounts kept in fixed
deposit, will be transmitted to the
account of claimant- M. Raza who shall
give his bank account.
----------
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)05ILR A494
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 310 of 2022
with
Special Appeal No. 296 of 2022

Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court,
Allahabad & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Chandan Sharma, Sri Samir Sharma (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shivendru Ojha, Sri R.K. Ojha
(Senior Advocate)

A. Service Law - Promotion - Allahabad
High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions
of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 -
Clause (ii) of Rule 8(a)(i) - The eligibility
of a candidate is to be reckoned on the
fixed
date
indicated
in
the
advertisement/notification
inviting
applications. In the absence of a date
fixed, the requisite eligibility is to be
judged on the last date for making the
applications
and
not
on
any
date
subsequent to that date. (Para 11)

The proposition that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the
last date for filing the applications, the eligibility
of the candidates shall have to be judged with
reference to that date and that date alone, is a
well-established one. A person who acquires the
prescribed qualification subsequent to such
prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An
advertisement
or
notification
issued/published calling for applications
constitutes a representation to the public
and the authority issuing it is bound by
such
representation.
It
cannot
act
contrary to it. (Para 13)

In the present case, the learned Single
Judge erred in law in permitting the writ
petitioners/respondents who admittedly
did not possess the minimum educational
qualifications
as
prescribed
u/Rule
8(a)(i)(ii) of the Allahabad High Court
Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service
and Conduct) Rules, 1976 as it stood on the
date of the notice inviting applications to
appear in the examination and also declare
their
results.
Since
the
writ
petitioners/respondents have already appeared in
the examination held on 10.04.2022, we deem it
appropriate to modify the order of the learned
Single Judge by directing that the results of the
writ
petitioner/respondents
and
all
other
candidates who have been permitted to take the
examination dated 10.04.2022 pursuant to the
order of the learned Single Judge dated
08.04.2022 shall not be declared and shall abide
by the outcome of the writ petition. The results of
all other candidates may be declared by the High
Court, if it so desires, however, the results so
declared shall also abide by the outcome of the
writ petition. (Para 10, 14)

Special appeals disposed off. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) Vs University of
Rajasthan & ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 (Para
11)

2. Ashok Kumar Sharma & anr. Vs Chander
Shekher & anr., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 (Para
12)

3. Ashok Kumar Sharma & ors. Vs Chander
Shekher & anr., 1997 (4) SCC 18 (Para 13)

Present special appeal challenges the
judgment and order dated 08.04.2022,
passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ-A
No. 4533 of 2022.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,
J.