Jammu & Kashmir High Court
2025:Jklhc-Jmu:1472-Db vs Mohd. Abdullah And Another on 6 June, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1472-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on 26.05.2025
Pronounced on 06 .06.2025
(1) Case: LPA No. 155/2023
Manager Trumboo Cement Industries Pvt.
Ltd.
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Ahtsham Hussain Bhat, Advocate and Ms.
Mehnaz Rather, Advocate.
v/s
Mohd. Abdullah and another
.... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Damini Singh Chouhan, Advocate
(2) Case: LPA No. 156/2023
Manager Trumboo Cement Industries Pvt.
Ltd.
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Ahtsham Hussain Bhat, Advocate and Ms.
Mehnaz Rather, Advocate.
v/s
Mohd. Rafiq and another
.... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Damini Singh Chouhan, Advocate
(3) Case: LPA No. 157/2023
Manager Trumboo Cement Industries Pvt.
Ltd.
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Ahtsham Hussain Bhat, Advocate and Ms.
Mehnaz Rather, Advocate.
v/s
Abdul Rashid Drabu and another
2
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1472-DB
LPA No.155/2023 a/w
connected appeals
.... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Damini Singh Chouhan, Advocate
(4) Case: LPA No.158/2023
Manager Trumboo Cement Industries Pvt.
Ltd.
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Ahtsham Hussain Bhat, Advocate and Ms.
Mehnaz Rather, Advocate.
v/s
Mohd. Yousuf and another
.... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Damini Singh Chouhan, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
Per Oswal-J:
1. These intra court appeals are directed against the common judgment
dated 11.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in MA No.
155/2007, MA No. 152/2007, MA No. 153/2007 and MA No.
154/2007 and cross-appeals bearing CCROSS No. 9900001/2008,
CCROSS No. 9900002/2008, CCROSS No. 9900003/2008 and
CCROSS No. 9900004/2008, whereby the statutory appeals preferred
by the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 and the cross-appeals
preferred by the claimants-respondent No.1 came to be disposed of.
2. Briefly stated, the claimant(s)-respondent(s) filed a claim petition
under Section 3 of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act (now called as
32025:JKLHC-JMU:1472-DB
LPA No.155/2023 a/w
connected appeals„Employee‟s Compensation Act‟) 1923 before the Commissioner,
Workmen‟s Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner),
Doda, Camp Ramban, for grant of compensation on account of the
injuries suffered due to an accident arising out of and in the course of
their employment, which came to be decided by the Commissioner,
Workmen‟s Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner),
Doda by a common award dated 08.06.2007. The said order dated
08.06.2007 was assailed by the Insurance company-respondent No.2
and the claimants, namely Mohd. Abdullah, Mohd. Rafiq, Abdul
Rashid Drabu and Mohd. Yousuf, by way of different appeals and
cross-appeals and all those appeals and cross-appeals came to be
disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.07.2023,
the order which forms the subject matter of these four intra court
appeals.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance
company has raised a preliminary objection in respect of
maintainability of these intra court appeals in view of the bar
contained in Section 100-A CPC.
4. Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, has argued that the Authority under the
Employees‟Compensation Act cannot be said to have acted as a Civil
Court, while deciding the application for grant of compensation under
the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, and Section 100-A CPC is
applicable only in respect of the suits/proceedings governed by the
42025:JKLHC-JMU:1472-DB
LPA No.155/2023 a/w
connected appealsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC). He has further submitted that the
right of appeal under Letters Patent Rules cannot be ousted by
implication, but the right of an appeal under the Letters Patent Rules
can only be taken away by an express provision in appropriate
legislation. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India in „Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar‘, (2002) 3 SCC 705,
to support his submissions.
5. Per contra, Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company, has argued that Section 30 of the Employee‟s
Compensation Act provides for only one appeal against an award to
the High Court and no further appeal is maintainable against the order
passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising its appellate
jurisdiction in terms of Section 30 of the Employees‟ Compensation
Act, in view of the bar contained in Section 100-A CPC. He has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of
India in case titled Geeta Devi and others Vs. Puran Ram Raigar
and another reported in 2010 ACJ 2660. He has also placed reliance
upon the judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case
titled Nijam-Ud Din Dar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., LPA
No.64/2024 decided on 09.10.2024 (J&K), Union of India vs.
Ranjeet Kour and others2010 (1) SLJ 367 and Vinaik Sharma Vs.
United India Insurance Company passed in LPAC No.25/2017
decided on 01.08.2017.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1472-DB
LPA No.155/2023 a/w
connected appeals
7. The following question arises for adjudication in this case :-
“Whether the bar contained in Section 100-A CPC shall apply
in a case where learned Single Judge decides a statutory appeal
under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act?”
In order to answer the abovementioned question, it is imperative to
extract Section 100-A CPC which reads as under: –
“Section 100-A- No further appeal in certain cases-
Notwithstanding anything contained in Letters Patent for any
High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any
law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original
or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by Single Judge
of High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and
decree of such Single Judge.”
8. In terms of Section 100-A CPC, where learned Single Judge decides
an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or order, then no
further appeal shall lie from that judgment, decree or order
notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent of the High
Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any law for
the time being in force. So far as Section 30 of the Employee‟s
Compensation Act is concerned, this provides for only one appeal
before the High Court. Similarly, Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act provides for only one appeal against the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The Coordinate Bench of this Court
in case titled Nijam-Ud Din Dar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
LPA No.64/2024 decided on 09.10.2024 (J&K), Union of India vs.
Ranjeet Kour and others reported in 2010 (1) SLJ 367 and Vinaik
Sharma vs. United India Insurance Co., passed in LPAC
No.25/2017 decided on 01.08.2017, after taking note of Section 100-A
6
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1472-DB
LPA No.155/2023 a/w
connected appeals
CPC has held that intra court appeal against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge while exercising appellate jurisdiction under the
Motor Vehicles Act, is not maintainable in view of Section 100-A
CPC.
9. The legislative intent to restrict the number of appeals can safely be
inferred from the textural composition of Section 100-A CPC, that
even if any right of further appeal against the order of learned Single
Judge while exercising appellate jurisdiction is provided under Letters
Patent Rules or any other law (which would mean and include special
law as well), the embargo contained in Section 100-A CPC restricting
further appeal from the judgment/order passed by the learned Single
Judge while exercising appellate jurisdiction, shall come in to play
and the intra court appeal against such order shall not be maintainable.
10. In this context, we deem it proper to place reliance upon the judgment
of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Kamal Kumar
Dutta and another Vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. and others
reported in (2006)7 SCC 613. In this case an appeal came to be filed
before the High Court against the order passed by the Company Law
Board and learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order
of CLB. Aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
special leave petitions were filed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
of India. The maintainability of special leave petitions was objected
to, in view of the availability of the alternative remedy of intra court
appeal in terms of clause 15 of the
7
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1472-DB
LPA No.155/2023 a/w
connected appeals
Letters Patent of Calcutta High Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of
India rejected the objection and proceeded to observe as under:
22. So far as the general proposition of law is concerned that the appeal is
a vested right there is no quarrel with the proposition but it is clarified that
such right can be taken away by a subsequent enactment, either
expressly or by necessary intendment. Parliament while amending
Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, by amending Act 22 of 2002
with effect from 1-7-2002, took away the Letters Patent power of the High
Court in the matter of appeal against an order of the learned Single Judge
to the Division Bench. Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as
follows:
“100-A. No further appeal in certain cases.–Notwithstanding anything
contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument
having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force,where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard
and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall liefrom the judgment and decree of such Single Judge.”
23. Therefore, where appeal has been decided from an original order by a
Single Judge, no further appeal has been provided and that power which used
to be there under the Letters Patent of the High Court has been subsequently
withdrawn. The present order which has been passed by CLB and against
that an appeal has been provided before the High Court under Section 10-
F of the Act, that is, an appeal from the original order. Then in that case no
further letters patent appeal shall lie to the Division Bench of the same
High Court. This amendment has taken away the power of the Letters
Patent in the matter where the learned Single Judge hears an appeal from
the original order. Original order in the present case was passed by CLB
exercising the power under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act and appeal
has been preferred under Section 10-F of the Act before the High Court.
The learned Single Judge having passed an order, no further appeal will
lie as Parliament in its wisdom has taken away its power. Learned counsel
for the respondents invited our attention to a letter from the then Law Minister.
That letter cannot override the statutory provision. When the statute is very
clear, whatever statement by the Law Minister made on the floor of the House,
cannot change the words and intendment which is borne out from the words.
The letter of the Law Minister cannot be read to interpret the provisions of
Section 100-A. The intendment of the legislature is more than clear in the words
and the same has to be given its natural meaning and cannot be subject to any
statement made by the Law Minister in any communication. The words speak
for themselves. It does not require any further interpretation by any statement
made in any manner. Therefore, the power of the High Court in exercising
the Letters Patent in a matter where a Single Judge has decided the
8
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1472-DB
LPA No.155/2023 a/w
connected appeals
appeal from the original order, has been taken away and it cannot be
invoked in the present context. There are no two opinions in the matter
that when CLB exercised its power under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act,
it exercised its quasi-judicial power as original authority. It may not be a
court but it has all the trapping of a court. Therefore, CLB while exercising
its original jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act passed the
order and against that order appeal lies to the learned Single Judge of the
High Court and thereafter no further appeal could be filed.
(emphasis added)
11. It would also be appropriate to take note of the judgment of the larger
Bench (5 Judges Bench, with 4:1) of Andhra Pradesh High Court in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Surya Prakash Reddy, 2006
SCC OnLine AP 434, where in it has been observed and held as
under:
41. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an
Appeal against an award made by the Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973. Section
54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for an Appeal against
the award of the Reference Court. Section 30 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 provides for an Appeal against an order
made by the Commissioner. Similar provisions are available in other
enactments for an Appeal against an award or order passed by the
competent authority or Court. As per the High Court Rules, all such
Appeals are heard by Single Bench. There is no provision in these
enactments under which an Appeal can be preferred against the
judgment rendered by the Single Bench in a matter arising out of an
award or order made by the competent authority or Court. Such
Appeal could be filed only under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
However, by virtue of the non-obstante clause contained in Section
100-A, with reference to Letters Patent and all other statutory
enactments, no Appeal can now be maintained under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent against the judgment rendered by a Single Bench
in an Appeal arising out of these enactments.
42. In view of the above discussion, the question referred to the
Larger Bench is answered in the following terms:
“After insertion of amended Section 100-A in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, by Act No. 22 of 2002, Letters Patent Appeal is
not maintainable against the judgment rendered by a Single
Bench in an Appeal arising out of a special enactment.”
(emphasis added)
9
2025:JKLHC-JMU:1472-DB
LPA No.155/2023 a/w
connected appeals
12. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant in case titled „Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar‘, (2002) 3
SCC 705, can be of no help to the appellant, as the said decision was
rendered when Section 100-A was not in the statute.
13. We are of the considered view that the intent behind incorporating
Section 100-A CPC is to limit the number of appeals and Section 100-
A CPC bars an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single
Judge while exercising its appellate jurisdiction not only under the
Code of Civil Procedure, but also under special enactments, such as
Employee‟s Compensation Act, Motor Vehicles Act. The above
question is answered accordingly.
14. In light of what has been considered, discussed and analyzed as
above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are,
accordingly, dismissed as being not maintainable alongwith
connected CM(s), if any.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
06.06.2025
Madan Verma-Secy.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes