Supreme Court Allows Claimants' Appeal in Workmen Compensation Case — Deputy Labour Commissioner Has Jurisdiction Over Contested Claims Under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. High Court Erred in Holding Contested Dispute as Coram-non-judice Before Commissioner.

  • 13
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, being the wife, son, and parents of late Sri Vakil Choudhary, filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Patna, in CWC No. 24 of 2011. The Commissioner allowed the claim in part, directing the first respondent, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, to pay compensation of Rs. 4,31,671/-. The insurance company appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 777 of 2014. The High Court, by judgment dated 01.10.2018, set aside the Commissioner's order on the ground that the dispute was a contested case and thus coram-non-judice before the Commissioner. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard arguments from Mr. Atil Inam for the appellants and Mr. Vishnu Mehra for the first respondent. The Court held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has jurisdiction to adjudicate contested claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the High Court erred in holding otherwise. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Commissioner's order.

Headnote

A) Workmen's Compensation - Jurisdiction of Commissioner - Contested Claims - Section 19, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has jurisdiction to adjudicate contested claims under the Act. The High Court erred in holding that a contested dispute is coram-non-judice before the Commissioner. The Commissioner is a quasi-judicial authority empowered to decide all matters arising under the Act, including contested cases. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has jurisdiction to adjudicate a contested claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, or whether such a dispute is coram-non-judice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment dated 01.10.2018, and restored the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation dated 10.10.2014 in CWC No. 24 of 2011.

Law Points

  • Jurisdiction of Deputy Labour Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act
  • 1923
  • Coram-non-judice
  • Contested claims under Workmen's Compensation Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (SC) (5) 25

Civil Appeal No. 3904 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10447 of 2019)

2023-01-01

Aravind Kumar, J.

Mr. Atil Inam for appellants, Mr. Vishnu Mehra for respondent No. 1

Mamta Devi & Ors.

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against High Court judgment setting aside compensation awarded by Deputy Labour Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought restoration of compensation order passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner.

Filing Reason

High Court set aside compensation order on ground that contested claim was coram-non-judice before Commissioner.

Previous Decisions

Deputy Labour Commissioner allowed claim in part; High Court set aside that order.

Issues

Whether Deputy Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to adjudicate contested claims under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide contested claims. Respondent argued that contested dispute is coram-non-judice before Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has jurisdiction to adjudicate contested claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and such disputes are not coram-non-judice.

Judgment Excerpts

the dispute raised was a contested case and it is coram-non-judice. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Atil Inam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as also Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, and perused the case papers.

Procedural History

Claim petition filed before Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Patna, in CWC No. 24 of 2011, allowed in part on 10.10.2014. Insurance company appealed to High Court of Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 777 of 2014, which set aside the order on 01.10.2018. Claimants appealed to Supreme Court by SLP (C) No. 10447 of 2019, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 3904 of 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 19
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Claimants' Appeal in Workmen Compensation Case — Deputy Labour Commissioner Has Jurisdiction Over Contested Claims Under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. High Court Erred in Holding Contested Dispute as Coram-non-judice Before...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Essential Commodities Act Case Due to Inordinate Delay - Imposes Fine Instead of Imprisonment. The Court held that the 31-year delay in appeal disposal constitutes an adequate and special reason to reduce the minimu...