Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 489 (JK)

Divisional Manager, J&K SFC v. Gh. Mohd. Bhat

2009-10-14

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2009
1. These bunch of appeals have been heard together, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the respective appeals are given as under:- CIMA No. 122/03 3. On 24th March 1994, the respondent who was working as "Pochhan" in compartment No.7, Kulli Gad, met with an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment and sustained injuries viz, his back bone was injured, hip fractured and received severe other multiple injuries. Age was claimed to be 36 years at the time of accident, and monthly wages were claimed to be Rs.2000/-. Compensation application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner Labour Doda (for short "Commissioner") under Workmens Compensation Act of 1923 ( for short "Act of 1923"). 4. The appellant appeared before the Commissioner and filed objections, wherein it was specifically denied that any accident has taken place and it was pleaded that respondent did not suffer any injuries out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. 5. Evidence was recorded. Dr. M. Zaffarullah appeared as witness of the respondent and his statement was recorded on 16th Dec. 1999. In his statement he deposed that he examined the respondent in his Clinic, whereafter he was advised to take x-ray of spine. The Doctor in the statement deposed that respondent was suffering from narrowing of intervertibral space between D-1 L-1 and L-2. The doctor opined that because of these injuries sustained by the respondent, the movement of his spine got restricted and his weight bearing capacity got reduced by about 50%. The doctor also deposed that respondent cannot lift weight. The doctor further opined that the respondent has suffered permanent disability. The respondent cannot do hard manual work or jungle work. The doctor opined that so far jungle work is concerned the physical capacity of the respondent is reduced by 50%. The doctor also opined that approximate age of the respondent is 45 to 50 years. In cross examination the doctor stated that the respondent has also developed osteoarthritis. The other witnesses supported the claim of the respondent by stating that he sustained fatal injuries which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. The doctor also opined that approximate age of the respondent is 45 to 50 years. In cross examination the doctor stated that the respondent has also developed osteoarthritis. The other witnesses supported the claim of the respondent by stating that he sustained fatal injuries which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. The witnesses including respondent in their statements specifically stated that the accident took place in the month of April 1994 when he was hit by sleeper while being engaged in the work. 6. The appellant examined one witness namely Shabir Hassan Shah, an employee of respondent. The said witness has deposed that the report of the accident was sent to him by one Akbar Ali. The witness has admitted in cross examination that he was posted in compartment No.7 where the respondent met with the accident during the course of his employment. The witness was posted in the said compartment in the month of Nov. 1994. The Commissioner after conducting the enquiry was satisfied with the claim of the petitioner that he met with the accident which arose out of and during the course of his employment with the appellant. The wages of the respondent were found to be Rs.50/-per day amounting to Rs.1500/-per month and his loss of earning capacity was fixed at 50% and his age was taken to be 50 years. The Commissioner, accordingly, in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act of 1923 awarded compensation of Rs.68,890/-and appellant was directed to deposit the award amount with the Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the announcement of the award which award was announced on 12th April 2003. CIMA No. 35/2003 7. The respondent filed an application before the Commissioner on 4th March 1999, claiming therein that he met with an accident on 9th Feb. 1998 and sustained injuries on his right hand, index finger and the ring finger were crushed. This accident arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. The respondent claimed to have suffered permanent disability. The respondent further claimed that he was earning Rs.2000/-per month and his age was 50 years at the time of accident. It was also claimed by the respondent that the employees of the appellant were present at the time of the accident. The respondent claimed to have suffered permanent disability. The respondent further claimed that he was earning Rs.2000/-per month and his age was 50 years at the time of accident. It was also claimed by the respondent that the employees of the appellant were present at the time of the accident. The appellant initiated steps for settling the claim of the respondent(s) but after one year refused to pay any compensation. 8. The appellant was summoned by the Commissioner and filed the objections to the application. The claim of the respondent was denied which resulted in conducting of an enquiry in the matter. The statement of Dr. Zaffarullah, who was posted at the relevant point of time in the District Hospital Doda, was recorded on 16.12.1999. The Dr. deposed before the Commissioner that the respondent who met with the accident, arising out of and during the course of his employment, suffered deformity of right index middle finger of right hand. The loss of earning capacity was stated to be 20%. It was also stated that the disablement caused to the fingers on account of injuries is permanent in nature. Age of the respondent was stated to be 56 years. In cross examination the doctor deposed that the fingers were not amputated but had suffered crush injuries. It was also stated that respondent can do manual work with some limitations. The other witnesses were also examined who deposed before the Commissioner that on 9th Feb. 1998, the respondent met with the accident, arising out of and in the course of employment with the appellant. The appellant, also examined one witness namely Shabir Hussain who in his statement recorded on 08th Nov. 2001 pleaded the ignorance about the accident. He has stated that in Feb. 1998 no accident took place as no such incident was brought to his notice. In cross examination he deposed that he did not know as to in which case he has to tender his statement but thereafter stated that he has come to give the statement in the case of Ab. Aziz. On further cross examination he failed to state as to where Ab. Aziz resides and what is his parentage. The said witness admitted that the work was started in the month of Oct. and completed in March. How many accidents took place during this period, he did not remember the same. Aziz. On further cross examination he failed to state as to where Ab. Aziz resides and what is his parentage. The said witness admitted that the work was started in the month of Oct. and completed in March. How many accidents took place during this period, he did not remember the same. He also pleaded ignorance as to in how many cases the accident report were submitted to him. He admitted that attendance of the labour is recorded by contractor and not by the departmental officials. 9. After conclusion of the enquiry the Commissioner being satisfied about the claim of the respondent passed an award of for an amount of Rs.29,280/-in favour of the respondent and directed the appellant to deposit the awarded amount within a period of thirty days from the date of announcement. The order was announced on 08th Jan. 2003. CIMA No.32/2003 10. The respondent filed an application on 25th Sept. 1997 before the Commissioner praying therein for directing payment of compensation to the respondent on the ground that he met with an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment with the appellant. The accident took place on 23rd August 1997, in compartment No.5, Marmat jungle which resulted in causing injuries all over the body of the respondent more particularly fracture of ribs, injuries on chest and abdomen. The respondent claimed that these injuries resulted in making permanent disability for doing work. The respondent also claimed that he was earning wages Rs. 3000/-per month and his age was 36 years at the time of accident. 11. On notice, the appellant appeared before the Commissioner and filed objections, wherein it was denied that any accident has taken place on 23rd August 1997, in compartment No.5 jungle Marmat. 12. The Commissioner thus conducted an enquiry into the claim of the respondent. The Doctor who was examined before the Commissioner deposed that he examined the respondent who had suffered fracture of 7th and 8th ribs on right side. The Doctor also deposed that the respondent had slight swelling and tenderness. The doctor also deposed that the chances of right side is restricted by about 20%. The doctor also opined that the disability is likely to remain permanent. On the basis of certificate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon the respondent had remained admitted in Doda Hospital under MRD No. 1782 from 26th August 1997 to 8th Sept.1997. The doctor also deposed that the chances of right side is restricted by about 20%. The doctor also opined that the disability is likely to remain permanent. On the basis of certificate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon the respondent had remained admitted in Doda Hospital under MRD No. 1782 from 26th August 1997 to 8th Sept.1997. The age of respondent was stated to be approximately 39 years. The doctor opined that over all disablement is 20% permanent in nature. On cross examination the doctor deposed that there was no chance for further improvement of the respondent. The doctor also deposed that except fracture for two ribs there was no any other fracture of any other limb of the body. The respondent appeared as his own witness in support of his case and also examined other witnesses. 13. The appellant(s) were directed to produce evidence to prove the pleas raised by them in the objections, but despite providing number of opportunities appellants failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal which resulted in closing of evidence of the appellant(s). 14. The Commissioner, after considering the evidence entered into satisfaction that the respondent had met with an accident that arose out of and in the course of employment with the appellant. The Commissioner estimated the loss suffered by the respondent in his earning capacity as 20% and his age was determined to be 36 years. The Commissioner, however, instead of taking monthly wages of respondent as Rs.3000/-opined that it would be Rs.2000/-per month. The Commissioner, accordingly, in terms of Section 4(1)b assessed and calculated compensation payable to respondent at Rs.44,860/-. The Commissioner, accordingly, passed an award for an amount of Rs.44,860/-in favour of respondent and against the appellant(s) and the appellant(s) directed for depositing of the award amount within a period of thirty days from the date of announcement of the award. The award was passed on 08.01.2003. CIMA No. 11/2000 15. The respondent filed an application on 29th Dec. 1990 before the Commissioner under the Provisions of Act of 1923, claiming therein that he met with an accident which accident arose out of and in the course of employment with the appellant on 7.9.1990; while doing chiran work in compartment No. 60, Hanga jungle. The respondent claimed that a rolling log hit him resulting in permanent and total disablement. 1990 before the Commissioner under the Provisions of Act of 1923, claiming therein that he met with an accident which accident arose out of and in the course of employment with the appellant on 7.9.1990; while doing chiran work in compartment No. 60, Hanga jungle. The respondent claimed that a rolling log hit him resulting in permanent and total disablement. The respondent also claimed that he sustained injuries to his arm, leg and all over body. The respondent claimed that he would earn Rs.1000/-as wages per month and his age was 20 years at the time of accident. It was further claimed by respondent that all the employees of the appellant were present at the time of accident. It was further claimed that though, the respondent was approached for payment of compensation but same was not paid to him which constrained him to file the application for compensation. 16. On notice being issued to the appellant, objections were filed in which the allegations made in the application, by the respondent, were denied. 17. The Commissioner conducted an enquiry into the matter, besides other witnesses Dr. Mohammad Iqbal Zargar, Assistant Surgeon, was also examined. His statement was recorded on 11th July 1997. In his statement, the doctor deposed that on examination of the respondent, post trauma stiffness of right shoulder and elbow joint were found and it was also found that there was slight reduction in grip power of right hand. The Doctor further deposed that respondent could be placed in the category of 20% disability and his age was stated to be about 28 years. On cross examination the doctor stated that there was slight reduction in lifting capacity of hand. The doctor further deposed that respondent can do all other sedentary work and that his opinion cannot be taken as final. All other witnesses supported the case of the respondent. 18. The appellant produced two witnesses one Sh. Ved Prakash, an employee of SFC appeared as witness of the appellant on 24th May 1999 and deposed that in the month of Sept. 1990 in compartment No.60 Hanga jungle, no accident took place, and also deposed that the respondent was not employed there. On cross examination the witness deposed that he does not remember as to whether Gh Ahmed lone was engaged as Mate in compartment No.60. 1990 in compartment No.60 Hanga jungle, no accident took place, and also deposed that the respondent was not employed there. On cross examination the witness deposed that he does not remember as to whether Gh Ahmed lone was engaged as Mate in compartment No.60. The other witness further stated that he has no knowledge about the labour of Gh. Ahmed Mate. The witness further stated that Chiran was started in the month of June and he was not incharge of Chiran work. 19. Sh. Balwan Singh, an employee of SFC appeared as witness of the appellant(s) before the Commissioner. His statement was recorded on 24th May 1999. The said witness deposed that he was posted in compartment No.60 in Hanga Jungle as supervisor IInd in Sept. 1990 and the work there was to be executed under his supervision. The said witness deposed that the respondent was not employed. The said witness further deposed that he has prepared accident report. On cross examination the witness deposed that he was posted in the month of August/Sept in the year 1989. Giran work was executed in his compartment from June to Nov. in the year 1989. The witness further deposed that he cannot tell the number of employees employed by labour Mate and also their earnings which opinion can be sought from the labour Mate or contractor. 20. Respondent in support of his claim petition examined two witnesses, who were also working with him and also the labour Mate Gh. Mohd lone. The said witness fully corroborated the claim of the respondent. The Commissioner found their statement very reliable and convincing than the statement of departmental witnesses. The two witnesses who appeared as witnesses of appellant(s) before the Commissioner stated that exact details regarding the engagement of labourer could be ascertained from the labour Mate or concerned contractor. The labour Mate in unequivocal terms deposed before the Commissioner that the respondent was employed as labourer and met with an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment with the appellants on 7th Sept. 1990 while executing Chiran work. The Commissioner relying on the expert evidence calculated the earning loss and the earning capacity of the respondent as 20%, and his age was accepted to be 21 years at the time of accident. 1990 while executing Chiran work. The Commissioner relying on the expert evidence calculated the earning loss and the earning capacity of the respondent as 20%, and his age was accepted to be 21 years at the time of accident. The Commissioner, accordingly, passed an award for an amount Rs.23,000/-including costs of Rs.729 to be paid to the respondent within a period of thirty days. CIMA No. 31/2000 21. The respondent filed an application before the Commissioner under the Act of 1923, wherein he pleaded that on 12th Nov. 1997 he received personal injury in an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. It was further pleaded that the respondent met with an accident when he was doing pathru work in compartment No.66-67, Gadi Nallah, where he slipped and got seriously injured. It was further pleaded that the respondent suffered back bone injury, fracture on lower and of fibula fracture on left ankle joint and left foot was crushed. The injuries sustained by respondent resulted in total/permanent disablement. The respondent also pleaded that his monthly wages were Rs.4000/-and his age was 25 years at the time of accident. It was also pleaded that employees of appellant were present at the time of accident. It was further pleaded that the respondent approached the appellant for payment of compensation but they refused to pay the compensation, which constrained him to file the application. 22. On notice being issued to appellant, objections were filed by the appellant. In the objections para No.1 of the application was admitted, wherein the respondent had pleaded that on 12th Nov. 1997 he met with an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant, while doing pathru work in compartment No.66-67 Gadi Nallah. However, in para (2) a contrary stand is taken and it denied that the respondent suffered any injury. At para (3) of the objections, it was pleaded that appellant(s) are paying Rs.33/-to daily rated workers. The age as claimed by respondent in the application was denied. The Commissioner conducted enquiry into the matter. The statement of doctor was recorded by Commissioner on 12th March 1999. The doctor in his statement deposed that he examined the respondent who had sustained injuries on left ankle joint resulting in fracture of lower end of left febula which is permanent in nature. The Commissioner conducted enquiry into the matter. The statement of doctor was recorded by Commissioner on 12th March 1999. The doctor in his statement deposed that he examined the respondent who had sustained injuries on left ankle joint resulting in fracture of lower end of left febula which is permanent in nature. It was also deposed that injuries caused to left ankle joint was permanent in nature. It was also deposed that the working capacity of the respondent as a labourer is reduced more than 50%. It was also deposed that over all loss of the earning capacity of respondent is between 50% to 60%. The doctor had further deposed that the injury being permanent in nature there could not be further improvement. The age of the respondent was stated to be 30 years. On cross examination, the doctor deposed that respondent cannot do jungle work as he cannot lift any log. The other witnesses supported the claim of the respondent. Even the appellant, in para (1) of the objections has admitted that the para (1) of the application filed by respondent in which he had pleaded that he met with an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment and suffered injuries, the details whereof have been given hereinabove. 23. The appellant(s) examined one Mohd Sharief Assistant Supervisor Extracting Division Ramban whose statement has been recorded on 25th Nov. 1999. The said witness has admitted that the respondent was working in the division and during course of his employment he suffered injuries. The said witness also claimed that the respondent was treated and on the said treatment Rs.1500/-were spent. The said witness also deposed that the respondent thereafter did not report for work. He further deposed that thirty three rupees were being paid as wages during that period. On cross examination the witness deposed that he was posted in compartment No.66-67 in the year 1995. He also deposed that in the month of Nov. 1997 the respondent was engaged and his Mate was Mohd Iqbal and contractor was Sudru Din. It was also deposed that the Corporation does not pay the wages to the labourers. The payment is being made through contractor. 24. The claim of the respondent was thus also proved by the witness produced by appellant. 1997 the respondent was engaged and his Mate was Mohd Iqbal and contractor was Sudru Din. It was also deposed that the Corporation does not pay the wages to the labourers. The payment is being made through contractor. 24. The claim of the respondent was thus also proved by the witness produced by appellant. The Commissioner after entering into satisfaction about the claim of the respondent passed an award for an amount of Rs.1,28,000/. The Commissioner further passed an award in favour of respondent on account of accidental injuries, medical treatment, and interest amounting to Rs.31,000/-for a period of two years in terms of Sec 4-A (1) of the Act of 1923. The Commissioner, accordingly, passed an award of Rs.1,59,000/-including costs and interest and directed the appellant to deposit the same within thirty days vide its award dated 24.01.2000. CIMA No. 34/2001 25. The respondent filed an application before Commissioner on 9th August 1999, pleading therein that he met with an accident which accident arose out of and in the course of employment with the appellant. In the application, it was further pleaded that the monthly wages of respondent were Rs.2,000/-. He was 28 years of age at the time of accident. It was also pleaded that while on work a timber scant fell on him which resulted in trauma to his right fore-arm fracture, dislocation of ulna bone of right fore-arm disabling him totally and permanently from doing any kind of work. A claim for payment of Rs.1/-lac as compensation was thus made by the respondent. 26. On notice issued to appellant(s), the appellant(s) filed the objections wherein they admitted, the respondent was in their employment and also admitted the factum of accident having been taken place. In the objections, it was also pleaded that respondent had suffered minor injuries and that he is fit to work. 27. The respondent was asked to lead evidence in support of his claim. The respondent besides appearing as his own witness also produced two witnesses viz Dr. Zaffarullah and Shah Din. Dr. Zaffarullahs statement was recorded on 1st June 2000 by the Commissioner. The doctor in his statement deposed that he had examined the respondent and had found swelling on right fore-arm. The doctor also deposed that muscles of middle index and ring fingers of the right hand have become week due to which grip power of right hand is affected. Dr. Zaffarullahs statement was recorded on 1st June 2000 by the Commissioner. The doctor in his statement deposed that he had examined the respondent and had found swelling on right fore-arm. The doctor also deposed that muscles of middle index and ring fingers of the right hand have become week due to which grip power of right hand is affected. The doctor also deposed that as per x-ray taken on the day of accident, of right fore-arm there is old healed mal-united fracture of ulna about 6 inch above wrist. The doctor opined that this is permanent disability up to 30%. The respondents age was approximately stated to be 30 years. On cross examination the doctor deposed that in case of special treatment the respondent may improve up to the extent of 5%. The doctor also deposed that because of disablement of right hand there is reduction of 30% of working capacity of the respondent. 28. The Commissioner on examination of the material on record came to conclusion that the earning capacity of respondent was reduced by 20%, which was also admitted by the parties in terms of the out of court settlement. The monthly wages of the respondent were fixed at Rs.1500/-at the time of accident, which was also admitted by the parties in writing during the course of proceedings. The age of the respondent was taken to be 30 years at the time of accident. The Commissioner, accordingly, passed an award for an amount of Rs.36,400/-which include interest in favour of the respondent and appellant was directed to deposit the award amount within a period of thirty days. CIMA No. 60/2007 29. The respondent filed an application before the Commissioner on 2nd Jan. 1996. The respondent further claimed that on 3rd March 1995, when he was working in Karara Chinab, he met with an accident causing multiple injuries all over the body. He specifically claimed to have sustained head injury, spinal card injury and leg injury which made him permanently disabled. The applicant claimed to have been earning wages at Rs.1000/-per month. His age was 30 years at the time of accident. The respondent also pleaded that the appellant(s) were informed about the accident. 30. On issuing of notice, the appellant(s) appeared and filed objections, wherein the claim of the respondent that he was in the employment of the appellant was denied. 31. His age was 30 years at the time of accident. The respondent also pleaded that the appellant(s) were informed about the accident. 30. On issuing of notice, the appellant(s) appeared and filed objections, wherein the claim of the respondent that he was in the employment of the appellant was denied. 31. Issues were framed and respondent was directed to produce evidence in support of his claim. The respondent besides examining himself also examined three other witnesses to prove his claim. The witnesses deposed before the Commissioner that respondent was trapped by the `Kandi" at Karara. He was doing lumbering work. It was also stated that the respondent sustained head injuries, back injury in his hand and all over body. Respondent was shifted to Doda Hospital where he was admitted as inpatient. It was also deposed that respondent would earn Rs.40 per day. It was also deposed that respondent cannot work now. The doctor who was examined, deposed that respondent had suffered from traumatic stiffness of Darso lumber spinal back bone. The doctor further stated that disability was permanent in nature and the respondent had suffered loss of working capacity by 50% as the injury has reduced the power of lifting weight. The age of the respondent was approximately stated to be 39 years. On cross examination the doctor stated that respondent had not suffered fracture and if the x-ray of the respondent is shown then he can give better opinion. 32. The appellant(s) also examined two witnesses to controvert the claim of the respondent, Gulzar Hussain witness of appellant stated that he was posted in Thatri sector in the year 1995 and from January 1995 to Dec. 1995 no work of "Mahan" was under progress. On cross examination the said witness deposed that in the year 1994 the work of "Pakran" was done at Ramban and thereafter no work was undertaken. The said witness has pleaded ignorance as to whether the contractor has been paid for the work done in 1995. The said witness also pleaded ignorance about drafting of the objections, as also when the flood hit the area. 33. Another witness Shamsu Din stated that in the year 1999 there was no work in the river Chinab for Mahan. On cross-examination the witness stated that after Feb. 1994 till date of tendering statement he was posted at Thathri sector. The said witness also pleaded ignorance about drafting of the objections, as also when the flood hit the area. 33. Another witness Shamsu Din stated that in the year 1999 there was no work in the river Chinab for Mahan. On cross-examination the witness stated that after Feb. 1994 till date of tendering statement he was posted at Thathri sector. He further deposed from that 1994-95 no work was done in the Thathri Sector. The said witness however admitted that contractor was given work from Chanderkote Ramban for Mahan and how much payment was made to the contractor in the year 1994-95 the witness pleaded ignorance. 34. The Commissioner after considering the material available on record came to conclusion, that there is variance between the written objections and statement made by the witnesses of the appellant. The Commissioner, after considering the written objections came to conclusion that the appellant had stated that respondent was not engaged on the said work for the reason that he had not given name of the contractor. The Commissioner thus, came to conclusion that there was work of Mahan going on in the year 1994-95. The Commissioner, accordingly, recorded a finding that its either the written objections which are false or the statement given by the witnesses of the appellant. The Commissioner also recorded a finding that on evidence it was proved that the respondent was engaged for work and met with an accident. The Commissioner also recorded a finding that opinion of doctors of both the parties are at variance and accordingly the Commissioner recorded a finding that nature of injury is temporary. The Commissioner accordingly considered the loss of wages at Rs.450 per month and the wages were calculated for a period of six years and resultantly an award of Rs.30,000/-was passed in favour of respondent(s) and against the appellant(s). 35. The appeals have been filed seeking setting aside of the awards passed by the Commissioner in favour of respondent(s). 36. Heard learned counsel for appearing parties. Considered the matter and the record available on the file(s). 37. The ld. counsel for appellant(s) submitted that the award has been passed by the Commissioner in violation of the provisions of Section 2 and 4 of the Act of 1923. 36. Heard learned counsel for appearing parties. Considered the matter and the record available on the file(s). 37. The ld. counsel for appellant(s) submitted that the award has been passed by the Commissioner in violation of the provisions of Section 2 and 4 of the Act of 1923. Ld counsel further submitted that the injuries sustained by the respondents are not scheduled injuries and further submitted that the respondent(s) are not entitled to receive any compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) referred to and relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case titled "National Insurance Company ltd. Appellant v. Mubasir Ahmed and ors reported in (2007) 2 SCC 249, to support his contention that the statement about loss of earning capacity is not a substitute for physical disablement. It can be one of the factor to be taken note of. 38. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeals are not maintainable as no substantial question of law is involved. Learned counsel also submitted that the award(s) impugned in the appeals are valid and legal and both in fact and law do not call for any interference. The learned counsel also referred to and relied upon the judgments titled National Insurance company v. Susanta Dass and ors Calcutta (DB) reported in 2001 ACJ 1047; Raveendran v. Soma vally Keral (DB) reported in 1996 ACJ 42; OIC v. Vasantha Pitamber Karnatka reported in 1998 ACJ 179; Pratap Narain Singh v. Sriniwas Sabata reported in 1976 SCC (I) 289; Divisional Manager v. Mohd Sultan, reported in 2007 J&K High Court. 39. The labour class because of its very character forms one of the weaker sections of the society. The labour class form backbone of the economy of a State. The labour class has been worst exploited class of the society. The law making authority in order to alleviate suffering of said working class and in order to assure guarantees of their rights, made law, called the Workmens Compensation Act 1923. The Act was designed to ensure that at least the minimum rights of the labour class are secured and protected and they are prevented from being subjected to any kind of exploitation. The Act of 1923 is a beneficial legislation benefiting that class of society, which belongs to the lowest strata of the society. The Act was designed to ensure that at least the minimum rights of the labour class are secured and protected and they are prevented from being subjected to any kind of exploitation. The Act of 1923 is a beneficial legislation benefiting that class of society, which belongs to the lowest strata of the society. In order to achieve the purpose underlying the Act of 1923 the law making authority has provided complete mechanism for redressing their lawful and just grievance. After the Constitution was given to the country the provisions have been made in the Constitution which are again engineered to offer protective cover to the labour class. Article 41 and 42 of the Constitution of India falls in part (iv) of the Constitution and the said Articles do remind the State to secure and safeguard the rights of the labour class. Considering the purport and import of the constitutional provisions as contained in Article 41 and 42 one can safely arrive at conclusion in the present day scenario that the said provisions of Constitution have flavour of fundamental rights, available to citizens. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to life and liberty. It has been held by Honble Supreme Court that life has to be meaningful and should not be mere animal existence and personal liberty without adequate protection to the rights of the labour class would be meaningless. The Articles 41 & 42 of the Constitution may have to be read as part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The rights of working class have to be adjudged besides in the light of the Act of 1923 also and in the light of the Constitutional guarantees. 40. In the changed times when the litigations have become expensive, in some cases, the just and lawful rights of individuals are defeated because of the reason that securing justice is becoming beyond their reach, as it has become expensive and time consuming. A labour who is paid minimum wages and who has to continuously totter at the brink of starvation, can ill afford to pursue litigations in courts which as above stated is expensive and time consuming. It appears that it is for one such reason that appeal provisions of the Act of 1923 has been so framed as to ensure that the labour is not subjected to any un-necessary and avoidable hardship. 41. It appears that it is for one such reason that appeal provisions of the Act of 1923 has been so framed as to ensure that the labour is not subjected to any un-necessary and avoidable hardship. 41. The law making authority has thus, provided in Section 30 of the Act of 1923 that no appeal shall lie against any order passed unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Section 30 of the Act is reproduced as under:- "30. Appeals-(I) 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: i(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Sec.4-A) (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 disallowing any claim of person alleging himself to be such dependent: (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 Cl.(b) unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided further, that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: Provided further that no appeal by an employer under Cl.(a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner, to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. (2). The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3). (2). The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3). The provisions of Section 5 of 3(the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)) shall be applicable to appeals under this section." 42. The appeal against any order under the Act of 1923 can be thus filed only when a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, would mean, that no appeal is to be entertained, unless it is shown that a substantial question of law is involved therein. The courts are duty bound to enforce intendment of the law making authority. The appellant while filing an appeal under the Act of 1923 is thus duty bound in law to show that a substantial question of law is involved. A perusal of all the appeals would show that no substantial question of law has been formulated in any of the appeals and there is not even a whisper in any of the appeals that a substantial question of law is involved. The appeals in such circumstances would not be competent in law. The court while entertaining and admitting these appeals has not also formulated any substantial question of law; and has also not stated while entertaining and admitting the appeals that any substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. These appeals in such circumstances could be treated to be not pending on the files of the Court, but as this question was not raised, neither argued as such is left open to be considered in appropriate case wherein such an issue is raised. 43. In all these cases on facts it is proved, that the respondents were engaged by the appellants in terms of provisions of the Act of 1923 and all the respondents met with the accident which arose out of and during course of their employment. On facts it is also proved by medical evidence that the working capacity has been reduced by a particular percentage in the respective cases and thus the earning capacity has got correspondingly reduced. The ld counsel for the appellant(s) would submit that deposition about the physical disablement made by the doctors in the respective claim petitions would not mean automatic reduction in the earning capacity and this would constitute a substantial question of law in all the cases. The ld counsel for the appellant(s) would submit that deposition about the physical disablement made by the doctors in the respective claim petitions would not mean automatic reduction in the earning capacity and this would constitute a substantial question of law in all the cases. The perusal of evidence of the doctors would show that they have specifically stated that the weight bearing capacity/earning capacity is reduced and the Commissioner has accepted the expert evidence and has not added anything of his own to the disability/loss of earning capacity. The ld. counsel for the appellants referred to National Insurance Company Ltds case (supra). In the said case, the doctor had stated that permanent/partial disability was less than 100% but the High Court in appeal had taken it to be 100% loss of earning capacity. The Honble Supreme Court held that in view of the doctors evidence the High Court could not hold that there was 100% loss of earning capacity. In the present case the Commissioner has relied upon the evidence of the doctor and has not increased the percentage of permanent/partial disability/earning capacity determined by the doctor. The judgment thus lends support to the case of the respondent(s) than that of the appellant(s). 44. The Commissioner has awarded interest in terms of Section 4-A in the case of Ain Alis case. The Commissioner was within his powers to award such interest. 45. These cases are not cases of no evidence or misreading of evidence. The Commissioner has returned the findings after applying his mind to the material available on record and no fault could be found with the same. 46. In all these appeals, no substantial question of law is involved. 47. This court is authorized to consider and deal with the cases only when it is shown that a substantial question of law is involved. As already held no substantial question of law is involved in any of the cases, the appeals are accordingly dismissed along with connected CMPs, if any. The award amount whatever deposited shall be released in favour of the respondent(s) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award(s) along with the interest that must have accrued thereon as the amounts are deposited in the Bank.