Judgment 1. On appeal is the Award of the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, District Srinagar (for short “Commissioner”), dated 31st January 2012, on Claim Petition (File No.W/C-01/D titled Mst. Farida and others v. Chief Engineer and another). 2. To find fault with the Award of learned Commissioner, appellants aver that the findings returned by him are quite erroneous and based on assumption because the vital. Issues that arose for determination, were as to whether a person, who is a permanent employee, drawing regular salary and whose family stood paid pensionary benefits, besides ex gratia relief and other benefits, can be termed as workman and that whether claim petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 before the learned Commissioner was maintainable in absence of serving notice upon the department under Section 10 of the Act. Further saying of appellants to find error in the Award, is that learned Commissioner has not appreciated the evidence, while returning the finding that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.10,410/- and that learned Commissioner worked out compensation of Rs.2,92,400/- without any basis. 3. Following are the issues/factual aspects, that according to appellants are substantial questions of law, for just determination of the case:— a) Whether application by claimants-respondents herein could have been entertained without giving notice under Section 10; b) Whether permanent salaried employee falls within definition of Workmen in light of the fact that he is not deprived of earning capacity; c) Whether compensation can be awarded without taking resort to the record and discussing and appreciating evidence which has come up the record. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length. I have gone through the pleadings and perused the record and also considered the matter. 5. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a claim petition before Learned Commissioner on 31st January 2009 for grant of compensatory award of Rs.7.00 Lacs with ancillary reliefs. The case set up by them was that Mohammad Yaseen Mistry (husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2&3), working in Power Development Department, met with an accident on 16th March 2007 while repairing the electric line at Grid Station Bemina, under the orders of appellant no.2, when he due to electric current fell down, causing severe brain injury, which ultimately resulted in his death. Appellants herein were summoned. They appeared and filed their objections. Appellants herein were summoned. They appeared and filed their objections. Appellants denied payment of compensation to dependents as the denial therefor was on the ground of deceased being permanent government employee, thus, not a workman under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. Rejoinder was filed by respondents 1 to 3 and the following issues learned Commissioner framed:— i. Whether the death of the deceased husband of the applicant no.1 and father of 2&3 applicants have been caused during and in the course of this employment? ii. Whether there is ‘any cause of action arisen due to which the applicants can claim the compensation under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act? iii. If so, to what extent the applicants are entitled to the compensation? iv. Whether the payment of service benefits with respect to Group Personal Accidental Insurance and the Chief Minister’s relief amount can debar the applicants to claim compensation under law. 6. Learned Commissioner, after recording statement of witnesses that both parties adduced and hearing learned counsel for parties, settled the issues in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and passed impugned Award in their favour, directing appellants to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 3. 7. Apposite it would be to discuss the three issues, raised by appellants in the appeal and as maintained by them would decide the whole matter inasmuch as the case projected in the appeal centres around the said issues. 8. The first issue that has been raised by appellants is that whether application by claimants - respondents herein could’ have been entertained without giving notice under Section 10. Learned counsel for appellants qua this issue, states that notice as required under Section 10 of the Act has not been served upon appellants. What Section 10 of the Act envisions, is gainful to be gone through. It stipulates: 10. Notice and claim. Learned counsel for appellants qua this issue, states that notice as required under Section 10 of the Act has not been served upon appellants. What Section 10 of the Act envisions, is gainful to be gone through. It stipulates: 10. Notice and claim. - (1) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within two years from the date of death: Provided that where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 3 are applicable the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the first of the days during which the workman was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease: Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such disease and which does not force the workman to absent himself from work the period of two years shall be counted from the day the workman gives notice of the disablement to his employer: Provided further that if a workman who having been employed in an employment for a continuous period specified under sub-section (2) of section 3 in respect of that employment ceases to be so employed and develops symptoms of an occupational disease peculiar to that employment within two years of the cessation of employment the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the day on which the symptoms were first detected: Provided further that the want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim— (a) if the claim is preferred in respect of the death of a workman resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer or at any place where the workman at the time of the accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him and the workman died on such premises or at such place or on any premises belonging to the employer or died without having left the vicinity of the premises or place where the accident occurred or. (b) if the employer or anyone of several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured workman was employed had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred: Provided further that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given or the claim has not been preferred in due time as provided in this sub-section if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim as the case may be was due to sufficient cause. 9. Before adverting to Section 10, which governs notice to authorities, the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been passed to have a piece of social security and welfare legislation. The dominant purpose of the Act is to protect the workman, thus, provisions of the Act should not be compensation, which the Parliament of this biggest democratic country of the Earth, thought necessary to have. The intention of the Legislature was to make employer an insurer of the workman responsible against the loss caused by injuries or death, which ought to have happened while the workman was engaged in his work. 10. Insofar as Section 10 of the Act is concerned, it provides that no claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident is given as soon as practicable, after happening of the accident and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within two years from the date of death. However, fourth proviso to Section 10 of the Act makes it clear that any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim, in the event claim is preferred in respect of death of a workman resulting from an accident that occurs on the premises of the employer or at any place where the workman at the time of accident works under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him. In the present case, appellants admit death of workman (husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2&3). In the present case, appellants admit death of workman (husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2&3). Appellants in further of having knowledge, information or for that matter notice of death of workman/deceased, did not pay only all pensionary benefits but also provided appointment to one of the members of the deceased workman on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994. Respondents 1 to 3 approached the learned Commissioner with claim petition within a period of two years. In that view of matter, requirements of Section 10 have been adhered to in the present case and the claim petition of respondents 1 to 3, therefore, was maintainable and so rightly entertained by learned Commissioner. The first issue thus tilts in favour respondents 1 to 3 and against appellants. 11. The second issue that has been taken by appellants is that whether permanent salaries employee falls within definition of the Workmen in light of the fact that he is not deprived of the earning capacity. Learned counsel for appellants about this issue, contends that as the deceased was a permanent employee, he cannot be termed as “workman” in terms of Workmen’s Compensation Act. This issue has been elaborately, and rightly so, discussed and settled by learned Commissioner while rendering in impugned Award in favour of respondents 1 to 3. Section 2 (1) (n) provides that “workman” means any person who is:— “(n) “workman” means any person who is— (i) a railway servant as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989) not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or (ia)(a) a master seaman or other member of the crew of a ship. (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft (c) a person recruited as driver helper mechanic cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle (d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship aircraft or motor vehicle or company as the case may be is registered in India or; (ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether the contract is expressed or implied oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall where the workman is dead includes a reference to his dependants or any of them.” 12. Workman, as visualizes by Section 2(1) (n) of the Act, also means any person, employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II to the Act. The pertinent Clauses (clause ix and xix) of. Schedule-II, giving details of persons as workmen within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act, are:— “(ix) employed in setting up, maintaining, repairing or taking down any telegraph or telephone line or post or any overhead electric line or cable or standard or fittings and fixtures for the same; or (xix) employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity, in the generating, transforming, transmitting or distribution of electrical energy or in generation or supply of gas” 13. As to whether deceased falls within definition of workman or not in terms of the Act as he was a government employee, has been discussed, dealt with and appropriately answered by learned Commissioner. In this regard learned Commissioner has discussed Section 2(1) (n) and Clauses (ix) and (xix) to Schedule II of the Act vis-a-vis the nature of work/job of the deceased that falls within the ambit of the Act. Therefore, the second issue as well goes in favour of respondents 1 to 3. 14. In this regard learned Commissioner has discussed Section 2(1) (n) and Clauses (ix) and (xix) to Schedule II of the Act vis-a-vis the nature of work/job of the deceased that falls within the ambit of the Act. Therefore, the second issue as well goes in favour of respondents 1 to 3. 14. Apart from what is discussed herein, it is pertinent to mention here that the growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, along with the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, rendered it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible from hardship arising from accidents. After a detailed examination of the question by the Government of India,. local governments were addressed in July 1921, and provisional views of the Government of India were published for general information. The advisability of the legislation had been accepted by the great majority of local governments and of employers’ and workers’ associations and the Government of India believed that public opinion generally is in favour of legislation. In 1922, a committee was convened to consider the question. After considering the numerous suggestions and opinions, the committee was unanimously in favour of legislation and drew up detailed recommendations. As a consequence, the Workmen’s Compensation Bill was introduced in the Legislature. The general principle is that the compensation should ordinarily be given to workmen who sustained personal injuries by accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. Compensation will also be given in certain limited circumstances for disease. The Workmen’s Compensation Bill passed by the Legislature received its assent on the 5th March, 1923. It came into force on 1st day of July 1924 as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 15. The third issue/factual aspect that has been raised by appellants is that whether compensation can be awarded without resort to the record and discussing and appreciating evidence, which has come up in the record. A bare glance of impugned Award would unequivocally suggest that learned Commissioner has taken care of all aspects of the matter. The requirements and necessities that had to be followed, have been complied with in letter and spirit by learned Commissioner. When claim petition was filed before the learned Commissioner, appellants were intimated and summoned. A bare glance of impugned Award would unequivocally suggest that learned Commissioner has taken care of all aspects of the matter. The requirements and necessities that had to be followed, have been complied with in letter and spirit by learned Commissioner. When claim petition was filed before the learned Commissioner, appellants were intimated and summoned. Appellants not only caused their appearance before the learned Commissioner, but they also filed their objections in opposition to claim petition of respondents 1 to 3. Appellants were represented by their counsel as well. Issues were framed. Witnesses were adduced by both parties. Appellants were given free field to project their case. Written arguments were even submitted by counsel for both parties. Verbose arguments were advanced by counsel for parties. Thereafter learned Commissioner rendered the judgment, impugned herein, meticulously discussing therein all facets of the matter as were required for just conclusion of the claim petition. Though the proceedings before learned Commissioner were not akin to proceedings emanating from a civil suit, yet learned Commissioner has given his best in rendering the judgment that is comprehensive and touches every topic, which was before it and the record, of course, has been one of the main factors which was gone through by learned Commissioner to come up with such elaborative judgment. On this count, the third issue also leans in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and against appellants. 16. In the above backdrop, appellants have not been able to prove that the findings given by the learned Commissioner are perverse in the sense that either of the finds are without any material on record or the same is totally opposed to the material on record. It may not be out of place to mention here that scope of Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for entertaining the appeal against the order passed by Commissioner is very limited. Section 30 clearly provides that the award of the Commissioner passed under the Act can be challenged in the appeal where substantial questions of law are involved. However, in the present, having regard to above comprehensive discussion, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. Section 30 clearly provides that the award of the Commissioner passed under the Act can be challenged in the appeal where substantial questions of law are involved. However, in the present, having regard to above comprehensive discussion, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. As a result, the Award dated 31st January 2012 of learned Commissioner is held to be in strict conformity with law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity as would call for any interference. 17. Further to point out here. A bald contention, though should not have been taken by appellants, yet, has been taken by them in instant appeal, is that impugned Award is vitiated as learned Commissioner has drawn conclusions without making reference to record, discussing and appreciating evidence and that learned Commissioner has returned finding as regards deceased drawing monthly salary of Rs.10410/-. Appellants have enclosed copy of claim petition of respondents 1 to 3 as Annexure A-1 with the Appeal, but without annexures thereof, knowing the same would answer what they contend against the Award of learned Commissioner. Paragraph 06 of claim petition mentions Rs.10,410/- as last pay of deceased. Reply of appellants to this paragraph, particularly about the last pay, is silent. While having glance of record, it becomes unequivocally clear that respondents 1 to 3 have placed on record of claim petition, the Last Pay Certificate of deceased. In such circumstances, better it was for appellants not to make such premise in the Appeal that is without any edifice. 18. In view of above, the award of learned Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act 19231 District Srinagar, dated 31st January 2012 on File No.W/C-01/D titled Mst. Farida and others v. Chief Engineer and another, is clearly validly based. 19. Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed. The Award dated 31st January 2012 of the learned Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, District Srinagar, is affirmed. 20. Record be sent down. Copy of this order be also transmitted to learned Commissioner.