Case Note & Summary
The appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., filed six miscellaneous first appeals under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workman's Compensation, Haveri, in W.C.Nos.33/2011, 34/2011, 35/2011, 36/2011, 37/2011, and 38/2011. The claimants, Jayanna (a cleaner) and Lingraj (a hamal), had filed claims for compensation for injuries sustained in an accident involving a lorry owned by respondent No.2, N. Mahantesh. The Commissioner awarded compensation, holding the insurer liable. The insurer appealed, arguing that there was no employer-employee relationship and that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The High Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel and the amicus curiae, noted that the Commissioner had recorded findings based on evidence, including the fact that the claimants were employed on the lorry and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. The insurer did not produce any evidence to rebut these findings. The court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the appeals were based on factual findings. Consequently, all six appeals were dismissed, and the Commissioner's award was upheld.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Burden of Proof - The Commissioner found that the claimants were employed as cleaner and hamal respectively on the lorry owned by respondent No.2, and that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The insurer failed to produce any evidence to rebut the presumption. Held that the Commissioner's findings are based on evidence and cannot be interfered with in appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. (Paras 1-5)
B) Workmen's Compensation - Appeal under Section 30(1) - Substantial Question of Law - The appeals were filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which requires a substantial question of law. The appellant-insurer did not raise any substantial question of law, and the findings of fact by the Commissioner are final. Held that the appeals are devoid of merits and dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workman's Compensation erred in holding the appellant-insurer liable to pay compensation to the claimants, and whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the insured owner of the lorry.
Final Decision
All six miscellaneous first appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workman's Compensation, Haveri, in W.C.Nos.33/2011, 34/2011, 35/2011, 36/2011, 37/2011, and 38/2011 are upheld.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 30(1)
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Burden of Proof
- Insurance Liability
- Commissioner's Findings
- No Substantial Question of Law
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 87
MFA No. 24762 of 2012 (WC) C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 (WC), MFA No. 24764 of 2012 (WC), MFA No. 24765 of 2012 (WC), MFA No. 24766 of 2012 (WC), MFA No. 24767 of 2012 (WC)
Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani (for appellant), Sri Abhinandan Hiremath (amicus curiae)
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hubballi
1. Jayanna S/o Narsimappa, 2. Lingraj S/o Basanna, 3. Sri. N. Mahantesh S/o Ningappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeals by insurance company against award of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-insurer sought to set aside the judgment and order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workman's Compensation, Haveri, in W.C.Nos.33/2011, 34/2011, 35/2011, 36/2011, 37/2011, and 38/2011.
Filing Reason
The appellant-insurer contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the insured owner, and that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workman's Compensation, Haveri, passed an award on 15.06.2012 in W.C.Nos.33/2011, 34/2011, 35/2011, 36/2011, 37/2011, and 38/2011, holding the insurer liable to pay compensation.
Issues
Whether the Commissioner erred in holding the appellant-insurer liable to pay compensation?
Whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the insured owner of the lorry?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant-insurer argued that there was no employer-employee relationship and that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
The amicus curiae supported the Commissioner's findings.
Ratio Decidendi
The Commissioner's findings on employer-employee relationship and that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment are based on evidence and cannot be interfered with in appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as no substantial question of law arises.
Judgment Excerpts
The appeals are filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
The Commissioner has recorded findings that the claimants were employed as cleaner and hamal respectively on the lorry owned by respondent No.2 and that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.
The appellant-insurer has not produced any evidence to rebut the findings of the Commissioner.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals.
Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed.
Procedural History
The claimants filed applications for compensation before the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workman's Compensation, Haveri, which were allowed on 15.06.2012. The insurer filed six miscellaneous first appeals under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which were dismissed on 25.07.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: 30(1)
