Appeal against Compensation Commissioner award maintainable only on substantial question of law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act of 1923 against an award passed by the Compensation Commissioner is maintainable only on a substantial question of law (Mayan v. Mustafa and Another)..A Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian was hearing a challenge to an order passed by the Madras High Court in the year 2013 by which an appeal filed by the first respondent, one Mustafa was accepted on the ground that the Compensation Commissioner at Tiruchirapalli had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it was the Compensation Commissioner at Cuddalore, who had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint..The appellant, one Mayan, was employed as a worker in an agricultural farm of the respondent. During the course of his employment, he lost his right leg after it got stuck in a harvesting machine.The Compensation Commissioner at Trichirapalli awarded a sum of ₹1,21,997 with 12 per cent interest to the appellant.The Madras High Court by its order dated April 25, 2013, an appeal filed by the first respondent, one Mustafa, was accepted on the ground that the Compensation Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.This lead to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.At the outset, the apex court noted that an appeal against the said award was maintainable only on a substantial question of law in terms of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act 1923.The Court was of the view that the High Court on a mere make-belief stand wrongly interfered with the award passed by the Compensation Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli."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," the Court observed.Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that under Section 21(1)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the award passed by the Compensation Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli was well within its jurisdiction.The Court, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Compensation Commissioner, further directed the first respondent to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000 to the appellant as costs, for depriving him of the compensation for over 20 years..Advocate-on-Record MP Parthiban, advocates AS Vairawan, R Sudhakaran, Shalini Mishra, T Hari Sudhan and Vikash GR appeared for the appellant. Advocate-on-Record Rajinder Singh, advocates R Sharath, Naman Garg and Akhileshwar Jha appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]