Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Divisional Manager vs Satish Kumar on 25 March, 2026
Serial No. 234
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
MA No. 454/2011
IA No. 824/2011 Reserved on:- 05.03.2026
Pronounced on:-25.03.2026
Uploaded on : 25.03.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Full
Divisional Manager,
J&K State Forest Corporation
Division, Bhaderwah .....Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Vipan Gandotra, Adv.
Mr. Karan Sharma, Adv.
vs
Satish Kumar
S/O Ram Raj
R/O Drafra
Tehsil & District, Doda ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. M. P. Gupta, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Through the medium of the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged
the Award dated 20.07.2011, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Doda as Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter
referred to as the “learned Commissioner”), whereby compensation of Rs.
2,74,500/- was granted in favour of the respondent in a claim for compensation,
for his disablement as a workman, during employment of appellant.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent (hereinafter
claimant’), while performing Pathroo work in Compartment No. 24, Kellar
Sector, A-Nallah Balogri, sustained serious injuries, when a wooden log fell on
his left leg; that he was admitted to District Hospital, Doda on 09.01.2007 vide
MRD No. 4913 because of a fracture of the left knee bone (patella), which
MA No. 454/2011 Page 1 of 11
rendered him permanently disabled; that at the time of the accident, the
respondent was 26 years of age and was earning monthly wages of Rs. 6,000/-.
3. The appellant (hereinafter ‘Employer’) filed written objections before the
learned Commissioner, wherein the employment of the respondent and the
occurrence of the accident were admitted, however, denied assertions with regard
to the age and wages of the respondent; that the learned Commissioner, after
considering the contents of the claim petition and the written objections filed by
the appellant before it, framed the following issues:
i) What were the wages and age of the appellant at the time
of the accident? OPP
ii) What is the extent of disability suffered by the appellant?
OPP
iii) Relief.
4. The claimant appeared as his own witness and recorded his statement
before the learned Commissioner. He stated that he was working with the
appellant in Compartment No. 24, Kellar Jungle, as a Mistry when he met with an
accident which caused a fracture to his left leg; that his his monthly wages were
Rs. 6,000/-; that due to accident, he remained admitted in District Hospital, Doda
for about two and a half months and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
5. In support of his claim petition, the claimant also examined three witnesses,
namely Ram Parshad and Om Parkash, and one medical witness, namely Dr. N.
D. Dar. Both Ram Parshad and Om Parkash supported the claim of the respondent
on the aspects of the accident. Dr. N. D. Dar, Medical Officer, District Hospital,
Doda, examined the claimant in open court on 14.06.2010 and stated that he had
been admitted to District Hospital, Doda on 09.01.2007 vide MRD No. 4913, with
a history of a wooden log falling on his left knee joint. The claimant was
MA No. 454/2011 Page 2 of 11
diagnosed with a fracture of the patella bone of the left knee joint and was treated
with plaster of Paris and discharged on 11.01.2007 with advice for regular
medical follow-up in the OPD. The doctor further stated that claimant was
disabled due to the said injuries and his disablement was more than 55% which
too is likely to increase with the advancement of age. The opinion of the doctor
was based on clinical examination as well as record shown to him. As per the
statement of the doctor, Dr. Shiv Kumar had treated and issued the certificate
stating that for the purpose of jungle work, the claimant was 100% disabled. In
cross-examination, the doctor clarified that, whatever, he deposed was based on
the certificate issued by Dr. Shiv Kumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon.
6. The learned Commissioner, after considering the material on record and
hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the claimant
had met with an accident during and in the course of his employment with the
employer. On the basis of the medical evidence, the learned Commissioner
assessed the permanent disablement suffered by the respondent at 55%. While
taking the monthly wages of the respondent as Rs. 4,000/- and his age as 30 years
at the time of the accident, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation in
the amount of Rs. 2,74,500/- in favour of the respondent.
7. The appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 20.07.2011 passed
by the learned Commissioner, precisely on the following grounds:-
i) That the learned Commissioner has violated the provisions of Sections 4,
5 & 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is stated that no notice of
alleged accident was ever served by the respondent upon the appellant or
any of its officers;
MA No. 454/2011 Page 3 of 11
ii) That the learned Commissioner committed illegality while passing the
impugned award as it has failed to appreciate the total failure on the part
of the respondent to establish his case for grant of compensation;
iii) That if the respondent received injury while executing the work as
alleged by him, the appellant was not liable to pay the compensation to
him under the Act as per own showing of the respondent that he was
engaged as a labourer by the contractor. Under the circumstances, there
was no relationship of workman and employer between the respondent
and the appellant, and thus, no liability on the appellant could have been
fastened;
iv) That the award is liable to be set aside on the ground that though Jammu
and Kashmir State Forest Corporation was necessary party, yet it was not
impleaded as a party in the proceedings before learned Commissioner;
v) That it was mandatory for the learned Commissioner to first identify the
nature of the injury and then assess compensation in accordance with law
as mode of assessment of compensation is different for different injuries;
vi) That the devastating contradictions in the pleading and in the evidence of
the respondent have been totally ignored by learned Commissioner,
while passing the impugned award;
vii) That the learned Commissioner has further committed illegality and fatal
contradictions in the claim petition and the statement of respondent
regarding his age.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant while reiterating the grounds taken in the
memo of appeal has, however, restricted his arguments to only two aspects of the
matter, one, that the learned Commissioner has assessed the functional disability
of the respondent- claimant at its own, whereas the same was required to be
assessed by a medical expert, and secondly, that the doctor, who had been
examined by the claimant, had not treated him and had just made a statement on
the basis of the record available with the claimant and on examination before the
MA No. 454/2011 Page 4 of 11
Commissioner, as such, the learned Commissioner, while passing the award, has
committed error on the point of law and the appellant has, thus, raised both these
substantial questions of law so as to seek quashment of the impugned award. He
finally prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned award be set aside or
be remanded back to the learned Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh. He
has relied upon the judgment of this court passed in cases ‘Divisional Manager V.
Noor Din & Anr‘ reported as 2011 (3) JKJ [HC] and judgment dated 23.07.2018
passed in MA No. 781/2010 titled ‘Divisional Manager, J&K SFC V. Bansi Lal’
to canvass his submissions.
9. Learned counsel for the claimant, ex adverso, vehemently supported the
award passed by the learned Commissioner, arguing that the learned
Commissioner has rightly decided all the material questions arising in the case, on
basis of evidence adduced and properly determined the compensation payable to
the respondent; that the present appeal is non maintainable for the reason that no
substantial questions of law have been raised for determination of this court in the
appeal and that whole of the awarded amount has not been deposited, so as to
maintain the appeal as provided in proviso to Section 30 of the Employee’s
Compensation Act. He further argued that the medical expert the claimant had
examined before the learned Commissioner had based his opinion on the record
available with claimant with regard to the treatment provided to the claimant by
another doctor namely Dr. Shiv Kumar, who was Orthopaedician; that the
medical expert had not only shown the physical disability but also expressed his
view with regard to the functional disability, which has been accepted by the
learned Commissioner, as such, there cannot be any illegality so as to warrant any
interference by this court under its appellate jurisdiction. In support of his
MA No. 454/2011 Page 5 of 11
contentions, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has relied upon the law
laid down by the Apex Court in case titled ‘Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. V. The
Divisional Manager & Anr’ reported as 2017 ACJ 1; and in case titled ‘North
East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation V. Smt. Sujatha‘ reported as 2019
ACJ 29 and of our own High Court in cases titled ‘Shree Ram General Insurance
Company Ltd. V. Geeta Sharma & Ors‘ reported as 2021 ACJ 1395 and
‘Divisional Manager JKSFC Doda V. Safdar Ali‘ in MA No. 582/2014 vide
judgment dated 13.09.2023. He, lastly, prayed that there being no substantial
questions of law having been raised in the memorandum of appeal, and the entire
amount of compensation not having been certified to be deposited with the
Commissioner, the appeal, on hand, being non maintainable be dismissed and the
impugned award be upheld.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the file and considered the
matter.
11. Essentially, two questions have been raised in this appeal as argued by the
learned counsel for the appellant/employer that the functional disability suffered
by the claimant has not been certified by the doctor, as such, the Commissioner
was not competent to decide the matter with regard to the permanent disablement
of the claimant so as to assess compensation awardable to him and that the
treating doctor had not been examined by the claimant and the medical expert,
who was simply an MBBS doctor had made statement on examination of the
claimant and on basis of the record of his treatment cannot be stated to be an
expert witness, so as to ascertain the physical/functional disability suffered by the
claimant and to assess the loss of income to award just and fair compensation.
MA No. 454/2011 Page 6 of 11
12. The Apex Court in a case titled ‘Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. V. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr.‘ reported as 2023 INSC 790, while discussing
the appellate jurisdiction in terms of Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation
Act, 1923, held that an appeal from the order of Commissioner can be entertained
only if there is a substantial question of law to be considered and that the
substantial question of law is to be understood by its general meaning, naturally,
the reference is to the Code of Civil Procedure, that framing of substantial
question of law is of cardinal importance and existence of such a question is a
prerequisite to the appeal being entertained. It was further held that the
Commissioner, being the last authority on facts, the scope of appeal under the Act
being limited only to substantial questions of law, if some perversity could be
demonstrated from the order of the Commissioner.
13. The Apex Court had clearly held in a case reported as 2017 ACJ 1 that a
finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability suffered by a
workman is purely a question of fact and under the scheme of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act (now Employee’s Compensation Act), Commissioner is the
last authority on facts.
14. It is well established that the Act is a social welfare legislation and
therefore, it must be given a beneficial construction. Matters thereunder are to be
adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen awareness of the scope
and intent of the Act, as has been held by the Apex Court in ‘K. Sivaraman V. P.
Sathishkumar‘ reported as (2020) 4 SCC 594. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala in a case ‘D. Veenu & Ors. V. Senen Fernandes & Ors.’
reported as 1996 ACJ 1078, while interpreting the Workmen Compensation Act,
1923 in a case of disability of a workman certified as 40% and the employer not
MA No. 454/2011 Page 7 of 11
questioning the medical certificate that they accepted before the Commissioner,
the acceptance of the same by the Commissioner even without examination of the
doctor held proper holding that if the employers wanted to challenge the medical
certificate they could have summoned the doctor.
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/employer that the
permanent disablement has to be assessed not by the Commissioner but by the
medical expert though the learned Commissioner has not clearly stated in the
award with regard to the assessment by the medical expert with regard to
disability, however, reverting to the statement of the medical expert Dr. N D Dar,
it is found that he had certified that given to the work of the claimant, the claimant
had suffered 100% disability and even this medical expert was cross examined by
the appellant herein, who stated that he had made his statement on the basis of the
certificate issued by Dr. Shiv Kumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon. It appears that the
appellant, during the examination of the medical expert, had not raised any
objection with regard to his competence to depose as medical expert and
subjected him to cross examination also, in such a situation, when the medical
expert has been examined and cross examined without any demur from the
appellant, his statement cannot be questioned, at the appellate stage, being factual
aspect of the case. Even Dr. Shiv Kumar who was stated to be a treating doctor,
was not examined by the appellant/employer in its defence, had there been any
doubt to the veracity of his certificate on which Dr. N D Dar had made up his
opinion on clinical examination of the claimant.
16. A single Bench of this Court in Safdar Ali (supra) had also taken a view
that the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a medical practitioner cannot be
termed to be more than a medical opinion of an expert providing an aid to the
MA No. 454/2011 Page 8 of 11
Commissioner, as has been held by the Apex Court in Golla Rajamma (supra),
being the last authority on facts. The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case
had also considered the case Bansi Lal (supra) relied upon by the
appellant/employer, holding that the reliance was misplaced and misdirected in
the facts and circumstances of the case and does not lend any support to the case
set up by the appellants.
17. Having regard to the case law as laid down by the Apex Court and by this
court discussed hereinabove on the subject, it can be safely held, particularly, on
the basis of the statement made by the medical expert, that the claimant had
though suffered physical disability up to 55% but the same has to be taken as
functional disability at 100% being a question of fact determined by the
Commissioner, that the examination of the medical expert, who had made
statement not only on the basis of the record of treatment available with the
claimant and the certificate issued by the treating surgeon/orthopaedic Dr. Shiv
Kumar, but also on examination of the claimant before the learned Commissioner,
in presence of the learned counsel for the appellant, and affording an opportunity
of being cross examined, the appellant cannot take a volte-face and raise this
factual question of law before this court under the appellate jurisdiction, which
can be exercised only when the substantial questions of law are involved.
18. The Apex Court in a case reported as 2019 ACJ 29 had held that the appeal
provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court, against the order of
Commissioner, is not like a Regular First Appeal, akin to Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, which can be heard both on facts and law and that the
appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to
examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case.
MA No. 454/2011 Page 9 of 11
19. Another aspect with regard to maintainability and the entertainment of the
appeal is that the whole of the award amount has to deposited before entertaining
the appeal. As per the certificate of deposit issued by the learned Commissioner,
the amount of Rs.2,74,500/- only has been deposited, which has been awarded as
principal amount, without any addition of interest thereon till filing of the appeal.
A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case ‘Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
V. Smt. Sundari & Ors‘ reported as 2007 ACJ 2139 has held that interest on
amount of compensation becomes part and parcel of compensation amount, which
the claimants are entitled to under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as such, the
Insurance Company was liable to make good not only the principal amount of
compensation, but also interest ordered by the Commissioner to be paid by the
Insurer.
20. Viewed thus, the principal amount, having been deposited by the appellant
without interest, cannot be stated that the award amount has been deposited with
the Commissioner, so as to satisfy the prerequisite condition for filing,
entertaining and admission of an appeal, besides raising substantial questions of
law.
21. Having regard to the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove,
this court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law is found
in the appeal, so as to set aside the impugned award and also that the appeal is not
maintainable in view of the fact that whole of the awarded amount of
compensation payable to the respondent claimant had not been deposited by the
appellant at the time of filing of the appeal.
22. As a result, on both these counts, the appeal is found to be bereft of merit
and substance and is not maintainable It is held that the questions, raised by the
MA No. 454/2011 Page 10 of 11
appellant, are factual in nature and did not amount to substantial questions of law
within the scope of an appeal under Section 30 of the Act. Given the appellate
court’s limited jurisdiction to decide substantial questions of law and not to re-
appreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact, it is concluded that the factual
findings are not open to interference on appeal. Therefore, the instant appeal is
dismissed being not maintainable as well as having no substantial question of law.
The impugned order is upheld.
23. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Doda for information and compliance.
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
Jammu
25.03.2026
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No.
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No.
Raj Kumar
2026.03.25 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
MA No. 454/2011 Page 11 of 11
