[2026:RJ-JP:2587] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4068/2016 Rajasthan Rajya Bunkar Sahkari Sangh Limited, Handloom Bhawan, Opposite Laxmi Mandir Cinema, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Managing Director through Officer in charge case. ----Appellant/Non-Claimant Versus 1. Smt Saroj Devi W/o Late Shri Rameshwar Singh, age 59 years. 2. Mahendra Singh S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Singh, age 33 years. 3. Sumer Singh S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Singh, age 27 years. All residents of House No. 56, Jamuna Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur. Respondents/Claimants 4. Rajasthan Sarkar, Jariye Chief Secretary, Shasan Sachivalaya, Jaipur ----Respondent/ Non-claimant For Appellant(s) : Mr.Raghunandan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, DGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/01/2026 1. By way of filing this Civil Misc. Appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner Employees’ Compensation, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Commissioner’) in Claim Case No.ECCF-11/2015 by which the claim petition submitted by the claimants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as “claimants”) has been allowed and the [2026:RJ-JP:2587] (2 of 6) [CMA-4068/2016] appellants have been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,56,520/- to the claimants along with interest @ 12% p.a. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has approached this Court by way of filing the instant appeal under Section 30 (AA) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act of 1923’). 3. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants before the Commissioner under Section 22 of the Act of 1923, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,56,520/- on account of death of the deceased-Rameshwar Singh, who passed away in an accident which occurred at Gandhi Nagar Mod, Jaipur while being hit by a motorcycle on 10.03.2010. 4. A detailed reply to the aforesaid claim was submitted by the appellant, wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the deceased was appointed on 05.01.1985 on the post of Class-IV and at the time of the accident, he was not performing any work, hence, the aforesaid accident did not occur during the course of employment. 5. After completion of the pleadings, the learned Commissioner framed as many as five issues. Thereafter, evidence of the claimants Saroj Devi and Mahendra Singh were recorded but they were not cross-examined by the appellant. On the basis of the evidence led by the claimants, the claim petition was allowed by the learned Commissioner vide impugned judgment dated 31.03.2016. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred, formulating the following substantial [2026:RJ-JP:2587] (3 of 6) [CMA-4068/2016] questions of law, in para 11 of the memo of appeal and the same read as under:- “11. That the following substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeal by the Hon’ble High Court:- (i) Whether Learned Employees Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur in absence of the any proof was justified in holding that at the time accident with motor cycle the deceased was working for the benefit of the appellant? (ii) Whether in absence of any proof that the deceased died due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, the learned Commissioner workmen Compensation, Jaipur was justified in holding that the deceased died in the course of employment of the appellant? (iii) Whether looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the learned Employees Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur is on very higher side and it deserves to be reduced? (iv) Learned Employees Compensation Commissioner was justified in casting the liability on the appellant to pay interest @ 12% to the claimants, which is contrary to the provisions of interest Act and that to from the date of accident. (v) Whether the Learned Employees Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur was justified in framing of the issue after the recording of the evidence of the respondent No. 1 and 2 and their cross-examination on 05.05.2015 and whether in absence of framing of any issue recording and cross examined of the claimant witness was justified? (vi) Whether the Learned Employees Compensation Commissioner Jaipur was justified in framing of the issue to fill up the gap after the cross-examination of the claimant witnesses?” 7. Perusal of the questions of law, as framed by the appellant in the memo of appeal, indicate that these are not substantial [2026:RJ-JP:2587] (4 of 6) [CMA-4068/2016] questions of law rather they are questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to controvert the aforesaid position. 8. It is settled proposition of law that an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is maintainable purely on the basis of the substantial question of law and not on the disputed question of facts. In the considered opinion of this Court the disputed questions have already been adjudicated by the learned Commissioner, while passing the impugned judgment/award. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. The Divisional Manager and Anr. Etc. Etc. while deciding Civil Appeal Nos.11114-11119 of 2016 arising out of SLP(C) No. 6696-6701 of 2015 on 23.11.2016 has dealt with the identical issue, which is involved in the instant appeal, in Para Nos.9, 10 and 11, which reads as under:- “9. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows: “30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:- (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or [2026:RJ-JP:2587] (5 of 6) [CMA-4068/2016] disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: 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:” (Emphasis supplied) 10. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 11. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen’s 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 re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.” [2026:RJ-JP:2587] (6 of 6) [CMA-4068/2016] 10. Similarly, in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha, the Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding Civil Appeal No. 7470/2009 on 02.11.2018 has taken the similar view. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the substantial questions of law, so framed in the memo of appeal, are not the questions of law but the same are the questions of fact, hence, the instant Civil Misc. Appeal is not maintainable, as findings of fact have been recorded against the appellant by the learned Commissioner, after appreciation of evidence led by both the sides. 12. This Court does not find any merit and substance in the instant appeal and same is found to be devoid of merits and is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Misc. Appeal stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 14. The summoned record, if any, received be sent back to the Commissioner forthwith. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/16