HCs must not review evidence

When a commissioner under the Workman’s Compensation Act decides the amount based on the injuries suffered by an employee, the high court should not review the evidence and change the order, the Supreme Court has ruled in Golla Rajanna vs Divisional Manager. The Act permits only a limited role to the high court and allows it to examine the appeal if it raises “substantial questions of law”. In this case, six employees were severely injured in a mishap caused by a truck. They petitioned the commissioner who found that they had suffered disabilities ranging from 35 to 40 per cent, based on medical certificates. The commissioner found that the disabilities had affected their capacity to earn income. Therefore, compensation was awarded based on medical evidence. However, the insurance company appealed to the Andhra Pradesh high court, which drastically reduced the amount. It went into the evidence and commented that “the entire exercise by the petitioners before the commissioner is to create a make-believe situation to show that indeed they had suffered serious injuries.” When the victims appealed to the Supreme Court, it restored the order of the commissioner and criticised the high court for not following the principles laid down by the welfare law. The commissioner is the last authority on facts, the judgment asserted, and added that “the high court recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which there is no basis.”