B. Jayasree v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Thrissur and Satheerathnam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013/14TH ASHADHA, 1935** **OP(LC).No. 760 of 2010 (O) --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN WCC 78/2000 of W.C.C., THRISSUR ..................** **PETITIONER: ----------** **B.JAYASREE, PROPRIETOR, JAYASREE THEATRE, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SMT.S.SHEEJA KUMARY(AYOOR) SMT.APARNA RAJAN** **RESPONDENT:** **----------** **1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSION), THRISSUR. 680 001.** **2. SATHEERATHNAM, W/O.LATE BALAN, THIRUVEGAPPURA HOUSE, ANDATHODE.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-679 564.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT R2 BY ADV. SRI.RANJIT BABU R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.RAMPRASAD UNNI** **THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0507-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **OP(LC).No. 760 of 2010 (O)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 12.06.1998. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM APPLICATION DATED 7.3.2000. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 05.01.2002. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 08.10.2009. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 09.11.1998.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO JUDGE.** ## **ln** A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------------O.P.(LC) No. 760 of 2010 - O --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] July, 2013 **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation imposing on him an obligation to pay an amount of Rs. 1,59,952/- with interest @12% per annum from 12.6.1998. The issue involved in the case was relating to a claim made by the legal representatives of a worker who died in an accident, which according to them was in the course of employment. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner having found that the incident of death occurred in the continuation of quarrel inside the Threatre, proceeded to find that the accident arose out of and in the course of O.P.(LC) No. 760 of 2010 - O 2 employment under the opposite party. 2. It is not in dispute that an appeal is provided under S.30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 presently known as Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. However, an appeal will lie only on a substantial question of law. According to the petitioner, since a Division Bench of this Court in **Raveendran** v. **Somavally [** 1995 (2) KLT 125 **]** have come to a finding that if the Commissioner finds that a person died during the course of employment, it is purely a question of fact and therefore it is not a substantial question of law. The petitioner, therefore is not in a position to file an appeal. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that when an appeal is not maintainable he is entitled to O.P.(LC) No. 760 of 2010 - O 3 invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 reads as under: “(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may- (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. O.P.(LC) No. 760 of 2010 - O 4 (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and offices of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces”. O.P.(LC) No. 760 of 2010 - O 5 4. It is purely a supervisory jurisdiction which can be exercised in a case where there is patent illegality in the nature of proceedings taken up by the courts below or the statutory authorities exercising quasi judicial function. It is not a case where such jurisdiction cannot be exercised in case where there is a statutory appeal provided. If in the statutory appeal, there is no substantial question of law, necessarily the order becomes final. An order which had become final, cannot be set aside in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with the provisions under the Workmen Compensation Act, that was a matter O.P.(LC) No. 760 of 2010 - O 6 which he ought to have raised as a question of law by filing an appeal. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I am not inclined to consider this writ petition on merits as there is no material to indicate that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.** rka /true copy/