>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Suzuo (Wuxi) Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. v. Bureau of Labor and Security of Wuxi City (Case about the Administrative Dispute over Ascertainment of Work-related Injury)
铃王公司诉无锡市劳动局工伤认定决定行政纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Suzuo (Wuxi) Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. v. Bureau of Labor and Security of Wuxi City (Case about the Administrative Dispute over Ascertainment of Work-related Injury)
(Case about the Administrative Dispute over Ascertainment of Work-related Injury)
铃王公司诉无锡市劳动局工伤认定决定行政纠纷案

Suzuo (Wuxi) Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. v. Bureau of Labor and Security of Wuxi City
(Case about the Administrative Dispute over Ascertainment of Work-related Injury)

 

铃王公司诉无锡市劳动局工伤认定决定行政纠纷案

[Judgment Abstract]

 【裁判摘要】
1. Where a work-relatedinjury assessment was overruled by a people's court before the implementationof the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance, the new work-related injuryassessment procedure started after the implementation of the Regulation shallfollow the provisions in the Regulation. 一、在《工伤保险条例》施行前作出的工伤认定被人民法院判决撤销后,又在《工伤保险条例》施行后重新启动的工伤认定程序,应当执行《工伤保险条例》的规定。
2. UnderArticle 8 of the Measures for the Work-Related Injuries Assessment, investigationand verification procedure for work-related injury assessment may be conductedby labor and social security administrative authorities as needed. Therefore, investigationand verification is not a required step for every work-related injuryassessment procedure.  Where the labor andsocial security authorities had collected evidences relating to the employee'sinjury as result of an accident in a concluded work-related injury assessment procedure,investigation and verification is not required in the new assessment procedure. 

二、《工伤认定办法》第八条规定,工伤认定程序中的调查核实,可以由劳动保障行政部门根据需要进行。故调查核实不是每个工伤认定程序中必经的程序。在已经终结的工伤认定程序中,劳动保障行政部门如果已经掌握了有关职工受事故伤害的证据,在重新启动的工伤认定程序中可以不再进行调查核实。

3. The people's court's mission in theadministrative litigation is to examine the lawfulness of a specificadministrative act challenged.  Only whena people's court knows the facts and evidences based on which the specificadministrative act is made, can the court make accurate evaluation on whetherthe specific administrative act is lawful or not.  三、人民法院在行政诉讼中的任务,是审查被诉具体行政行为的合法性。人民法院只有了解被诉具体行政行为据以作出的事实和证据,才可能对被诉具体行政行为是否具有合法性作出正确评价。
BASIC FACTS 

Plaintiff: Suzuo (Wuxi) Electric Appliances Co., Ltd., domiciled at Lingjiang Road in Jingsu Wuxi National Hi-tech Industrial Development Zone.

 原告:铃王(无锡)电器有限公司,住所地:江苏省无锡国家高新技术产业开发区灵江路。
Legal Representative: Suzuki Nobuo, chairman of the board of directors of this company. 法定代表人:铃木信雄,该公司董事长。
Defendant: Bureau of Labor and Security of Wuxi City, domiciled at New Nanyuan Village, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:无锡市劳动和社会保障局,住所地:江苏省无锡市南苑新村。
Legal Representative: Qian Zongjian, director of this bureau. 法定代表人:钱宗建,该局局长。
Third Party: Guo Weijun, male, 36 years old, resident of Jinlin City in Jilin Province, and resided at New Fenglei Village, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province. 第三人:郭维军,男,36岁,吉林省吉林市人,住址:江苏省无锡市风雷新村。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Suzuo (Wuxi) Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Suzuo Company) filed an administrative lawsuit with the Nanchang People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, for the reason that it was dissatisfied with the No. 0491 [2005] Decision on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury (hereinafter referred to the No. 0491 Decision) made by the Bureau of Labor and Security of Wuxi City (hereinafter referred to as Wuxi Labor Bureau) on April 30, 2005. The Nanchang People's Court deemed that Guo Weijun (Guo) had a legal interest with the specific administrative act under action and thus notified him to attend the action as the third party. 原告铃王(无锡)电器有限公司(以下简称铃王公司)因不服被告无锡市劳动和社会保障局(以下简称无锡市劳动局)于 2005年4月30日作出的锡劳工伤认 [2005]第0491号《工伤认定决定书》(以下简称0491号工伤认定书),向江苏省无锡市南长区人民法院提起行政诉讼。无锡市南长区人民法院认为郭维军与本案被诉具体行政行为有法律上的利害关系,通知其为本案第三人参加诉讼。
Suzuo Company complained that: During office time in the afternoon of February 14, Guo, a former employee of Suzuo Company, was going before the bulletin board inside the company's gate without permission. Suddenly he felt extremely weak and fell to the ground after several steps backwards, and thus suffered from a brain injury. As for Guo's injury, Wuxi Labor Bureau had decided for two times that it was not a work-related injury, and the People's Government of Wuxi City maintained the aforesaid decision upon reconsideration. However, the Nanchang People's Court overruled the aforesaid two decisions and ordered Wuxi Labor Bureau to make a new ascertainment of work-related injury for the reasons that the facts were not clarified, the evidence was weak and the laws were not correctly applied. The Wuxi Intermediate People's Court maintained the judgment of the first instance of the Nanchang People's Court by the No. 2 [2005] Administrative Judgment for the Second Instance (hereinafter referred to as the No. 2 [2005] Judgment). On April 30, 2005, Wuxi Labor Bureau made the No. 0491 Decision. The No. 0491 Decision quoted the No. 2 [2005] Judgment that “there was no evidence proving that Guo Weijun fell to the ground and got injured during regular office hours, instead he went to the work place of the company due to any matter irrelevant to regular production or work” as the basis, and affirmed that Guo's injury was work-related. After Suzuo Company applied for administrative reconsideration, the People's Government of Wuxi City maintained the No. 0491 Decision. Guo left his post and carried out something else without so directed, went before the bulletin board without permission, suddenly fell to the ground, and got injured, so his injury was not affected by any external force or unsafe factor. According to Article 7 (1) the Provisions of Jiangsu Province on Work-related Injury Insurance for Urban Enterprise Employees (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions of Jiangsu Province on Work-related Injury Insurance), Guo's injury could not constitute a work-related injury. In the process of ascertaining work-related injury for the first two times, Wuxi Labor Bureau could lawfully investigate and obtain the evidence, and all evidence proved that Guo's injury was irrelevant to the work, therefore, Wuxi Labor Bureau made the decision that it did not constitute a work-related injury. Guo got injured before the implementation of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance, the present ascertainment of work-related injury is just an extension of the previous two, and this case should not be governed by the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance. In the present ascertainment of work-related injury, Wuxi Labor Bureau did not carry out any investigation, and just made the decision according to the court judgment, which was a wrong application of law. As a reconsideration organ, the People's Government of Wuxi City first maintained the decision of no work-related injury upon reconsideration, and then maintained a decision of constituting work-related injury upon reconsideration, however, these two decisions were about the same legal facts. Such administrative reconsiderations conflicting with each other could not exert the function of correcting wrong administrative acts at all. The No. 0491 Decision made by Wuxi Labor Bureau was clearly wrong, and Suzuo Company pleaded the court to cancel the No. 0491 Decision. 原告铃王公司诉称:2000年2月14日上午,本公司原职工郭维军在上班期间,一个人擅自走到公司大门口内公告栏前,突然体力不支,后退几步摔倒在地,造成脑部损伤。对郭维军所受伤害,被告曾两次认定不构成工伤,无锡市人民政府经复议也维持不认定工伤的决定。但是这两次不认定工伤的决定,均被无锡市南长区人民法院以事实不清、证据不足、适用法律错误为由撤销,判决被告重新作出工伤认定。无锡市中级人民法院还以(2005)锡行终字第2号行政判决书(以下简称2号终审判决书)维持了南长区人民法院的一审判决。2005年4月30日,被告作出0491号工伤认定书。该认定书引2号终审判决书中“没有证据证明在单位日常的工作时间和工作的区域内,郭维军因从事与日常生产、工作无关的事务而跌倒致伤”一语作为依据,认定郭维军受到的伤害为工伤。本公司申请行政复议后,无锡市人民政府也复议维持了 0491号工伤认定书。郭维军是在没有任何人指派其离开工作岗位从事其他事情时,擅自走到公司公告栏前突然摔倒致伤,其受伤不存在任何外力或者不安全因素的影响。根据《江苏省城镇企业职工工伤保险规定》(以下简称省工伤保险规定)第七条第 (一)项,郭维军的受伤根本不构成工伤。在前两次工伤认定程序中,被告能依法调查取证,所取证据也都证明了郭维军的受伤与其工作无关,因此作出不认定工伤的决定。郭维军受伤一事发生在《工伤保险条例》施行前,本次工伤认定程序只是前两次认定程序的延续,《工伤保险条例》不能对本案适用。在本次工伤认定程序中,被告不进行调查,只是依据法院判决就作出认定工伤的决定,是适用法律错误。作为复议机关,无锡市人民政府先是复议维持一个不认定工伤的决定,后又复议维持一个认定工伤的决定,而前后两个决定指向的都是同一个法律事实。这样出尔反尔的行政复议,根本不能发挥纠正不正确行政行为的作用。被告作出的0491号工伤认定书明显错误,请求判令撤销。
Suzuo Company submitted the following items of evidence: 原告铃王公司提交以下证据:
1. The No. 0491 Decision and written administrative reconsideration decisions, which were used to prove the existence of the specific administrative act under action; 1.0491号工伤认定书、行政复议决定书,用以证明被诉具体行政行为客观存在;
2. Telephone Recording processed by Suzuo Company about the phone call between Wang Jin, director of the Medical Insurance Office of Wuxi Labor Bureau, and Zhu Jie, person in-charge of the Management Department of Suzuo Company, the investigation transcripts made by Wuxi Labor Bureau after having made investigations into Wu Hong, Zhu Xiaojie, Shen Zhenyu, Yao Zhigang, Lu Yi, Wei Bolun, Dai Ying, and Wei Jing, etc. during the period from December 25, 2002 to January 22, 2003, and the Process of Occurrence of Accident written by Wu Hong, which were used to prove that Guo left his post and carried out something else without so being assigned, went before the bulletin board without permission, suddenly fell to the ground, and thus got injured, so his injury was not affected by any external force or unsafe factor; 2.铃王公司整理的无锡市劳动局医保处处长王进与铃王公司管理部负责人朱洁的《电话录音》,2002年12月25日至2003年 1月22日期间无锡市劳动局调查吴宏、朱小洁、沈振字、姚志刚、陆毅、魏伯伦、戴英、韦菁等人后所作的调查笔录,以及吴宏书写的《事故发生经过》,用以证明郭维军是在没有任何人指派其离开工作岗位从事其他事情的情况下,擅自走到公司公告栏前,在无任何外力影响和不安全因素的情况下突然摔倒致伤;
3. The inquiry raised by Suzuo Company to the magazine of China Social Security, two responses made by the editors of that magazine, and the article “His Injury Could not Constitute a Work-related Injury” as published on the Issue No. 3 [2001] of that magazine, which were used to prove that the viewpoint of no work-related injury was supported by the public opinion. 3.铃王公司向《中国社会保障》杂志的咨询稿、该杂志主持人的两份答复及2001年第3期该杂志刊登的《他的摔伤不能算因工》一文,用以证明不认定工伤的观点受到舆论界支持。
Wuxi Labor Bureau defended that: 1. Guo got injured on February 14, 2000. In the labor disputes occurred between Guo and Suzuo Company afterwards, Wuxi Labor Bureau had undertaken the ascertainment about whether Guo's injury was work-related or not upon the entrustment of Xinqu Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee of Wuxi City (hereinafter referred to as Xinqu Arbitration Committee). According to Article 7 (1) of the Provisions of Jiangsu Province on Work-related Injury Insurance applicable at that time, only if an employee gets injured, handicapped or killed when he conducts daily production or work for his employer, or conducts the work temporarily designated by the person-in-charge of his employer, or conducts the work directly relating to the major interests of his employer where the circumstance is urgent although such work has not been designated by the person-in-charge of his employer, can it be ascertained as a work-related injury. Upon investigations, it could not be affirmed that Guo got injured when he was conducting daily production or work for his employer, therefore, Wuxi Labor Bureau made two decisions of no work-related injury successively on April 5, 2002 and January 22, 2003. However, such two decisions were revoked by the judgment of the court. 2. It was during that period that the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance came into force. In comparison to the prior provisions on work-related injury insurance, that Regulation saw great changes in the ascertainment of work-related injury. Article 19 (2) prescribes that: “Where an employee or his lineal relative believes that an injury is work-related, while the employing entity does not believe so, the latter shall bear the burden of proof.” In order to implement the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, Jiangsu Provincial Department of Labor and Security promulgated the Opinions about Some Issues on the Implementation of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance on March 10, 2005, of which Article 19 prescribes that: “In case an employee who has suffered an incidental injury or occupational disease before the implementation of the Regulation applies for the ascertainment of work-related injury as of April 1, 2005, the principle of application of new substantive provisions and adoption of old procedural provisions shall be followed when the law is applied.” 3. When Wuxi Labor Bureau was making the No. 0491 Decision on April 30, 2005, it followed the principle of application of new substantive provisions and adoption of old procedural provisions, and found after examination of the materials formed in the last two investigations that the former investigation materials only reflected that Guo got injured within regular office hours and at the work place but could not prove what caused his injury although the substantive standards for ascertainment of work-related injury were not changed. According to the procedures prescribed in Article 19 (2) of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, Suzuo Company, as the employer, should assume the burden of proof and prove that Guo's injury was not work-related. However, all the items of evidence presented by Suzuo Company could only prove that Guo fell to the ground and got injured for an unknown reason but not for any matter irrelevant to regular production or work. Based thereon, according to Article 55 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Procedure Law果然是京城土著), which prescribes that: “a defendant who has been judged by a people' court to undertake a specific administrative act anew shall not, based on the same fact and reason, undertake a specific administrative act essentially identical with the original act”, the No. 0491 Decision made by Wuxi Labor Bureau verified that Guo's injury was work-related. 4. After receipt of the No. 2 [2005] Judgment and commencement of the procedure for the re-ascertainment of work-related injury, Wuxi Labor Bureau had ever served a proof notice according to the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance. After receipt of the proof notice, Suzuo Company only presented its objection to the reason why Guo got injured upon expiration of the time limit for producing evidence as well as the materials basically identical with the former evidentiary materials. Based thereon, Wuxi Labor Bureau made the No. 0491 Decision on the basis of the former investigation materials. The facts were clearly affirmed, evidence was sufficient, laws were correctly applied and the procedures were lawful in the No. 0491 Decision, so the court should maintain the No. 0491 Decision. 被告无锡市劳动局辩称:一、第三人郭维军受伤一事发生于2000年2月14日。其后在郭维军与原告铃王公司发生的劳动争议中,本局受无锡市新区劳动争议仲裁委员会(以下简称新区仲裁委)的委托,对郭维军受伤一事进行工伤认定。当时的省工伤保险规定第七条第一项规定,职工只有从事本单位日常生产、工作或者本单位负责人临时指定的工作,在紧急情况下,虽未经本单位负责人指定但从事直接关系本单位重大利益的工作负伤、致残或者死亡的,才能认定工伤。经调查,无法认定郭维军是在从事本单位日常生产、工作时受伤,因此本局先后于2002年4月5日和2003年1月22日,两次作出不认定工伤的决定,但是这两次决定均已被法院判决撤销。二、在此期间,《工伤保险条例》施行。与以往的工伤保险文件比,该条例在工伤认定方面有很大变动,其中第十九条第二款规定:“职工或者其直系亲属认为是工伤,用人单位不认为是工伤的,由用人单位承担举证责任。”为落实《工伤保险条例》,江苏省劳动和社会保障厅于2005年3月10日发出《关于实施<工伤保险条例>若干问题的处理意见》,其中第十九条规定:“《条例》实施前已受到事故伤害或者患职业病的职工,自2005年4月1日起申请工伤认定的,适用法律时坚持实体从旧、程序从新的原则。”三、本局2005年4月30日作出 0491号工伤认定书时,本着实体从旧、程序从新的原则,重新对过去两次调查形成的材料进行审查后发现,尽管不改变工伤认定的实体标准,但过去的调查材料只反映了郭维军是在日常工作时间、工作区域内受伤,不能证明郭维军是因何事受伤。如果按照《工伤保险条例》第十九条第二款规定的程序,作为用人单位的原告就有责任举证证明郭维军所受伤害不是工伤。但原告所举的一切证据,只能证明郭维军不知何故跌倒致伤,不能证明其是因从事了与日常生产、工作无关的事务而受伤。据此,根据《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法老婆觉得我剪头发浪费钱》(以下简称行政诉讼法)第五十五条关于“人民法院判决被告重新作出具体行政行为的,被告不得以同一的事实和理由作出与原具体行政行为基本相同的具体行政行为”的规定,本局作出0491号工伤认定书,认定郭维军所受伤害是工伤。四、本局接到2号终审判决书,在重新开始认定工伤的程序后,按照《工伤保险条例》的规定,曾向原告发出过举证通知。原告接到举证通知,只在举证期限过后向本局递交了其对郭维军受伤原因提出的异议,以及一些与过去证明材料内容基本相同的材料。据此,本局根据以往的调查材料,依法作出0491号工伤认定书。0491号工伤认定书是事实清楚、证据确凿、适用法律正确、程序合法的具体行政行为,法院应当维持。
Wuxi Labor Bureau submitted the following items of evidence: 被告无锡市劳动局提交以下证据:
1. The investigation transcripts made by Wuxi Labor Bureau after investigations into Guo Weijun, Wu Hong, Zhu Xiaojie, Shen Zhenyu, Yao Zhigang, Lu Yi, Wei Bolun, Dai Ying, Wei Jing, Li Bing, Tang Ronghu, Sun Gang, Chen Kangquan, Li Ruichun and Zha Erguo, etc. during the period from December 23, 2002 to January 22, 2003, the photos on accident scene, the letter of power issued by Suzuo Company to Wu Hong, and the Process of Occurrence of Accident written by Wu Hong, which were used to prove that Guo got injured during regular office hours and at the work place through former investigations, however, the reason for his injury was not found; 1.2002年12月23日至2003年1月 22日期间,无锡市劳动局对郭维军、吴宏、朱小洁、沈振宇、姚志刚、陆毅、魏伯伦、戴英、韦菁、李兵、唐荣湖、孙刚、陈康群、李瑞春、查贰国等人进行调查形成的调查笔录,事故现场照片,铃王公司对吴宏的授权委托书,吴宏书写的《事故发生经过》,用以证明在以往的调查中,已经查明郭维军是在日常工作时间、工作区域内受伤,但不知何故受伤;
2. Former relevant materials involving reconsideration and litigation, the Investigation Report on the Injury of Guo Weijun made by Wuxi Labor Bureau on January 19, 2003 as well as the Conference Minutes made on January 21, 2003, the No.2 [2005] Judgment and the No. 0491 Decision, which were used to prove the factual basis for Wuxi Labor Bureau to make a new specific administrative act; 2.以往涉及复议、诉讼的相关材料, 2003年1月19日无锡市劳动局制作的《关于郭维军负伤情况的调查报告》及同年 1月21日的《会议纪要》,2号终审判决书和0491号工伤认定书,用以证明无锡市劳动局重新作出具体行政行为的事实根据;
3. The No. 289 Proof Notice for Ascertainment of Work-related Injury and the Acknowledgement of Service, which were used to prove that Wuxi Labor Bureau had asked the parties involved to produce evidence before making the No. 0491 Decision; 3.No289《工伤认定举证通知书》及《送达回执》,用以证明无锡市劳动局作出 0491号工伤认定书前,履行了让当事人举证的程序;
4. Materials presented by Suzuo Company on April 11, 2005 after receipt of the proof notice (including the transcriptions on the investigations into Yao Zhigang, Shen Zhenyu, Xu Xun and Xu Feng etc. made by Suzuo Company itself, the Course of Escort written by Li Ruichun, and the Application Form for Leave submitted by Guo to Suzuo Company on October 28 and November 8, 1999), which were used to prove that the evidence presented by Suzuo Company upon expiration of the time limit for producing evidence still could not prove that Guo got injured due to any matter irrelevant to regular production or work; 4.铃王公司接到举证通知后于2005年4月11日递交的材料(包括铃王公司自行对姚志刚、沈振宇、徐讯、徐锋等人调查形成的笔录,李瑞春书写的《护送经过》,郭维军于1999年10月28日、11月8日递交给铃王公司的《请假申请单》),用以证明铃王公司在举证期限过后所举的证据,仍然不能证明郭维军是因从事了与日常生产、工作无关的事务而受伤;
5. The Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, the Measures for the Ascertainment of Work-related Injuries, the Measures of Jiangsu Province for the Implementation of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, the Provisions of Jiangsu Province on Work-related Injury Insurance, and the Notice of Jiangsu Provincial Department of Labor and Security on Printing and Distributing the Measures of Jiangsu Province for the Implementation of the Provisions on the Work-related Injury Insurance for Urban Enterprise Employees, which were used to prove the legal basis for the specific administrative act under action; and 5.《工伤保险条例》、《工伤认定办法》、《江苏省实施<工伤保险条例>办法》、省工伤保险规定、江苏省劳动厅《关于印发<江苏省城镇企业职工工伤保险规定实施办法>的通知》,用以证明作出被诉具体行政行为的法律依据;
6. The analysis article on the 3 [2001] Issue of China Labor Security about whether Guo Weijun's injury was work-related or not, which was used to prove the public opinion about Guo's injury. 6.《中国劳动保障》2001年第3期中关于郭维军是否属因工负伤的评析文章,用以证明舆论界对郭维军受伤一事的观点。
Guo stated that: there was evidence proving that he got injured at the working place and within office hours, and the reason for his injury was the installation of door bell lines for Suzuo Company, he got injured for Suzuo Company at work, so his injury should be ascertained as work-related. Although Suzuo Company denied that Guo got injured because of work, it had never presented the evidence to prove that Guo's injury was caused due to any matter irrelevant to the work. According to Article 19 (2) of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, the No. 0491 Decision was lawful and the court should maintain it. 第三人郭维军述称:现有证据证明,本人是在工作场所和工作时间内受伤,受伤致残的原因是为公司装门铃线,确实是在为公司工作时受伤,依法应认定为工伤。原告铃王公司虽然否认本人是为公司的工作而受伤,但从未提供过本人是从事了与工作无关的事务而受伤的证据。根据《工伤保险条例》第十九条第二款规定,被告作出的 0491号工伤认定书合法,法院应当维持。
Guo had not presented any evidence. 第三人郭维军未提交证据。
Upon cross-examination and attestation, the Nanchang People's Court found that: 经质证、认证,无锡市南长区人民法院查明:
Guo was the deputy director of the Technology Office of Suzuo Company. In the morning of February 14, 2000 (the first working day after the spring festival), Guo fell to the ground and got injured in the factory during office hours, and it was diagnosed by the hospital as acute closed craniocerebral injury. On June 7, 2000, when Wu Hong, trade union chairman of Suzuo Company went to the Legal Aid Center of Wuxi City Federation of Trade s for consultancy, he had ever stated that: “after going to work in the morning, he (Guo) got a cut in a finger of his left hand when he was helping the staff of the Repairing Office in arraying lines, when he found the cut and blood, he came to the office and asked others for a wound sticker. When he walked out of the office not far away, he fell to the ground suddenly without any recognized reason and under the circumstance of not being bumped by anyone.” On October 30, 2001, Guo filed an arbitration application with Xinqu Arbitration Committee, and on November 9, 2001, Xinqu Arbitration Committee entrusted Wuxi Labor Bureau to verify whether Guo's injury was work-related by the No. 1 [2001] Appraisal Document. On April 5, 2002, Wuxi Labor Bureau replied to Xinqu Arbitration Committee by the No. 17 [2002] Reply on the Ascertainment of Work-related Injury for Guo Weijun (hereinafter referred to as the No. 17 [2002] Reply) that Guo's injury was not work-related. Guo dissatisfied with the No. 17 [2002] Reply and applied to the People's Government of Wuxi City for reconsideration. On September 17, 2002, the People's Government of Wuxi City maintained the No. 17 [2002] Reply by the No. 27 [2002] Reconsideration Decision. Guo was still dissatisfied and lodged an administrative lawsuit on October 14, 2002. On November 13, 2002, the Nanchang People's Court rendered the No. 13 [2002] Administrative Judgment and revoked the No. 17 [2002] Reply for the reasons that the facts were not clearly found, evidence was weak and the laws were wrongly applied in that Reply, and ordered Wuxi Labor Bureau to make a new ascertainment of work-related injury. On January 22, 2003, Wuxi Labor Bureau made new investigations and then worked out the No. 1 [2003] Letter on Ascertainment of Work-related Injury for Enterprise Employee (hereinafter referred to as the No. 1 [2003] Letter) according to Articles 7 and 8 of the Provisions of Jiangsu Province on Work-related Injury Insurance, and decided not to ascertain Guo's injury as work-related. Guo was also dissatisfied with the No. 1 [2003] Letter and filed an administrative lawsuit again. On December 2, 2004, the Nanchang People's Court rendered the No. 8 [2003] Administrative Judgment, adjudicating to revoke the No. 1 [2003] Letter for the reasons that the facts were not clearly ascertained and the main evidence was insufficient in that Letter, and ordered Wuxi Labor Bureau to make a new ascertainment of work-related injury within 60 days after the effectiveness of the judgment. Wuxi Labor Bureau dissatisfied with that judgment and filed an appeal. On February 22, 2005, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City rejected the appeal and maintained the original judgment by the No.2 Judgment for the Final Instance. After the beginning of the new procedure for ascertainment of work-related injury, Wuxi Labor Bureau sent out the No. 289 Notice of Proof for Work-related Injury to Suzuo Company by mail on March 8, 2005, which mainly said that: “according to the No.2 Judgment of the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court for the Final Instance and Article 19 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, you need to assume the burden of proof for Guo's application for ascertainment of work-related injury. You should present your reasons and evidentiary materials for not constituting a work-related injury to the Medical Insurance Office of this bureau within 15 days upon receipt of this Notice (a seal shall be affixed for any written material), otherwise, this bureau will make a conclusion on the ascertainment of work-related injury according to relevant provisions.” After receipt of the proof notice, Suzuo Company presented its statements and some evidence to prove that Guo's injury was not work-related to Wuxi Labor Bureau on April 11, 2005. On April 30, 2005, Wuxi Labor Bureau made the No. 0491 Decision and held that Guo's injury was work-related. Suzuo Company was dissatisfied with it and applied for administrative reconsideration. On August 3, 2005, the People's Government of Wuxi City maintained the No. 0491 Decision. Suzuo Company was still dissatisfied and thus filed this administrative lawsuit. 第三人郭维军原系原告铃王公司的技术科副科长。2000年2月14日(春节休假后的第一个工作日)上午,郭维军于工作时间内在厂区跌倒致伤,经医院诊断为急性闭合性颅脑外伤。2000年6月7日,铃王公司工会主席吴宏去无锡市总工会法律援助中心咨询时,曾陈述:“上午上班后,他 (郭维军)帮助维修班的员工排线时,不慎把左手手指划了一道口子,他见伤口流血就到办公室向别人要了创口贴,走出办公室不多远,在无任何人碰撞他的情况下,不知什么原因,突然自己跌倒。”2001年10月30日,郭维军向新区仲裁委提出劳动争议仲裁申请。同年11月9日,新区仲裁委以锡新劳仲勘鉴字(2001)第1号文,委托被告无锡市劳动局认定郭维军的伤情是否构成工伤。2002年4月5日,无锡市劳动局以锡劳社医[2002]17号《关于郭维军工伤认定的复函》(以下简称[2002]17号工伤认定复函)答复新区仲裁委,认为郭维军所受伤害不能认定为工伤。郭维军不服[2002] 17号工伤认定复函,向无锡市人民政府申请复议。同年9月17日,无锡市人民政府以锡府复决字(2002)27号《行政复议决定书》,决定维持[2002]17号工伤认定复函。郭维军仍不服,于同年10月14日提起行政诉讼。同年11月13日,无锡市南长区人民法院作出(2002)南行初字第13号行政判决,以[2002]17号工伤认定复函事实不清、证据不足、适用法律错误为由,撤销了该复函,并判决无锡市劳动局重新作出工伤认定。2003年1月22日,无锡市劳动局在重新调查后,根据省工伤保险规定第七条、第八条作出锡劳社医[2003]1号《企业职工工伤认定书》(以下简称[2003]1号工伤认定书),决定不认定郭维军所受伤害为工伤。郭维军对[2003]1号工伤认定书仍不服,再次提起行政诉讼。2004年12月2日,无锡市南长区人民法院作出(2003)南行初字第8号行政判决,以事实不清、主要证据不足为由,判决撤销了[2003]1号工伤认定书,并判决无锡市劳动局在判决生效后60日内重新作出工伤认定。无锡市劳动局不服该一审判决,提起上诉。2005年2月22日,无锡市中级人民法院经审理后,以2号终审判决书作出驳回上诉,维持原判的判决。新的工伤认定程序开始后,无锡市劳动局于2005年3月8日通过邮局向铃王公司发出No289《工伤认定举证通知书》,主要内容为:“根据无锡市中级人民法院2号终审判决书和《工伤保险条例》第十九条的规定,你单位需对郭维军的工伤申请承担举证责任。请你单位在收到本通知书之日起15日内将不认为是工伤的理由及证据材料递交我局医疗保险处(书面材料需加盖单位公章)。逾期,我局将依据有关规定,依法作出工伤认定结论。”铃王公司收到举证通知书后,于4月11日向无锡市劳动局递交了不认为郭维军是工伤的陈述及一些证据。2005年4月30日,无锡市劳动局作出0491号工伤认定书,认定郭维军受伤为工伤。铃王公司不服,申请行政复议。2005年8月3日,无锡市人民政府复议维持了0491号工伤认定书。铃王公司仍不服,遂提起本案行政诉讼。
The focuses of disputes involved in this case were: 1. whether the administrative procedure for ascertainment of work-related injury restarted after the implementation of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance could be governed by the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance? 2. whether it was lawful for Wuxi Labor Bureau to make the No. 0491 Decision without investigation and directly incorporate the reasons for adjudication in the No.2 [2005] Judgment into the No. 0491 Decision? 本案争议焦点是:1.《工伤保险条例》施行后重新启动的工伤认定行政程序,能否适用《工伤保险条例》?2.无锡市劳动局未经调查作出0491号工伤认定书,并将2号终审判决的裁判理由写入该工伤认定书中,是否合法?
The Nanchang People's Court held that: 无锡市南长区人民法院认为:
1. Article 64 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, which was promulgated by No. 375 of the State Council on April 27, 2003, prescribes that: “The present Regulation shall come into force as of January 1, 2004. If the employees who are injured from accidents or suffer from occupational diseases prior to the enforcement of the present regulation have still not finished the ascertainment of work-related injuries, they shall be governed by the present Regulation.” Although Guo got injured on February 14, 2000, and his injury had been ascertained for two times by Wuxi Labor Bureau, there was no effective decision on the ascertainment of work-related injury after the implementation of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, so the ascertainment of work-related injury for Guo's injury was not completed yet. According to Article 64 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance谨防骗子, the ascertainment of work-related injury restarted for Guo's injury should be governed by the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance. The opinion of Suzuo Company that the present ascertainment of work-related injury was an extension of the previous two ascertainments and this case should not be governed by the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance was against the law and could not be adopted. 一、2003年4月27日,国务院以第 375号令公布了《工伤保险条例》,其中第六十四条规定:“本条例自2004年1月1日起施行。本条例施行前已受到事故伤害或者患职业病的职工尚未完成工伤认定的,按照本条例的规定执行。”第三人郭维军虽于2000年2月14日受伤,受伤后虽经被告无锡市劳动局的两次工伤认定,但至《工伤保险条例打遮阳伞就显得很娘》施行之日,没有取得过发生法律效力的工伤认定决定,因此对郭维军所受事故伤害的工伤认定尚未完成。依照《工伤保险条例》第六十四条规定,在对郭维军所受事故伤害重新启动的工伤认定程序中,应当按照《工伤保险条例》的规定执行。原告铃王公司关于本次工伤认定程序是前两次工伤认定程序的延续,《工伤保险条例》对本案不能适用的意见,与法相悖,不予采纳。
2. For the purpose of regulating the ascertainment of work-related injuries, ascertaining the work-related injuries according to law, as well as safeguarding the legal rights and interests of the parties, the Ministry of Labor and Social Security promulgated the Measures for the Ascertainment of Work-Related Injuries on September 23, 2003. These Measures are formulated according to the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, and also come into force as of January 1, 2004. Article 5 of these Measures prescribes that the labor relationship, diagnosis certification and other materials necessary for the ascertainment of work-related injuries should be submitted by the applicant. Article 8 prescribes that: “The administrative department for labor and security may, after accepting an application for the ascertainment of a work-related injury, investigate and verify the evidences provided according to the needs in the examination. The relevant department and persons shall provide assistance. The employing entity, the medical treatment institution, the relevant department, and the labor union organization shall be responsible for assigning relevant persons to assist the work and provide information and documents that can prove the facts.” Article 14 prescribes that: “Where an employee or his lineal relative believes that an injury is work-related, while the employing entity does not believe so, the latter shall bear the burden of proof. If the employing entity refuses to prove, the administrative department for labor and security may draw a conclusion on the ascertainment of work-related injury according to the proof provided by the employee suffered from the injury.” 二、为规范工伤认定程序,依法进行工伤认定,维护当事人的合法权益,2003年9月23日,劳动和社会保障部颁布了《工伤认定办法》。该办法系根据《工伤保险条例》的有关规定制定,亦于2004年1月1日起施行。该办法第五条规定,进行工伤认定所需的劳动关系、诊断证明等材料,由申请人提交。第八条规定:“劳动保障行政部门受理工伤认定申请后,根据需要可以对提供的证据进行调查核实,有关单位和个人应当予以协助。用人单位、医疗机构、有关部门及工会组织应当负责安排相关人员配合工作,据实提供情况和证明材料。”第十四条规定:“职工或者其直系亲属认为是工伤,用人单位不认为是工伤的,由该用人单位承担举证责任。用人单位拒不举证的,劳动保障行政部门可以根据受伤害职工提供的证据依法作出工伤认定结论。”
Article 14 (1) of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance prescribes that: an employee shall be regarded to have suffered from the work-related injury if he got injured from an accident due to the work during office hours and at the work place. The No. 2 [2005] Judgment said in the reasoning part for maintaining the judgment of the first instance that “there was no evidence that could prove that Guo Weijun fell to the ground and got injured due to any matter irrelevant to regular production or work within office hours and at the work place of the company”, which complied with the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance. 工伤保险条例》第十四条第(一)项规定,职工在工作时间和工作场所内,因工作原因受到事故伤害的,应当认定为工伤。2号终审判决书在阐述维持一审判决的理由时,其中“没有证据证明在单位日常的工作时间和工作的区域内,郭维军因从事与日常生产、工作无关的事务而跌倒致伤”一语,完全符合《工伤保险条例》的规定。
After receipt of the No. 2 [2005] Judgment, Wuxi Labor Bureau restarted the ascertainment of work-related injury according to law. Since Wuxi Labor Bureau had obtained a lot of evidence upon investigation about the course of Guo's injury in the ascertainments of Guo's injury, it had not conducted investigation any more in the restarted ascertainment. Considering that Suzuo Company had never considered that Guo's injury was work-related, it should assume the burden of proof according to Article 19 of the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance and Article 14 of the Measures for the Ascertainment of Work-Related Injuries, therefore, Wuxi Labor Bureau sent out the Notice of Proof for the Ascertainment of Work-related Injury to Suzuo Company so as to notify it to produce the evidence, and also clearly notified it of the legal consequences if it failed to produce proof. After receipt of the Notice on Proof, it did not produce the evidence within the term as designated in the said Notice but more than ten days later, it was still not able to prove that Guo's injury was caused by anything irrelevant to regular production or work. Wuxi Labor Bureau made the No. 0491 Decision and made the decision that it was a work-related injury after it had examined the evidence presented by Suzuo Company after the time limit. 被告无锡市劳动局接到2号终审判决书后,依法重新启动了工伤认定程序。由于在以前的工伤认定程序中,对第三人郭维军所受事故伤害的经过,无锡市劳动局通过调查已经取得大量证据,故在重新启动的工伤认定程序中,该局未再进行调查。鉴于原告铃王公司一直不认为郭维军所受事故伤害是工伤,依照《工伤保险条例》第十九条和《工伤认定办法》第十四条的规定,铃王公司应当承担不是工伤的举证责任,于是无锡市劳动局向铃王公司发出《工伤认定举证通知书》,通知其举证,并且明确告知了不承担举证责任的法律后果。铃王公司接到举证通知书后,未在通知书指定的期限内举证,延期10多天后提交的证据,仍没有证明郭维军因从事与日常生产、工作无关的事务而跌倒致伤。无锡市劳动局在对铃王公司延期提交的证据进行审查后,以0491号工伤认定书作出认定工伤的决定。
According to Articles 5 and 8 of the Measures for the Ascertainment of Work-Related Injuries, the administrative department for labor and security may, after accepting an application for the ascertainment of a work-related injury, only examine the materials provided by the applicant, and then investigate and verify the evidence provided according to the needs in the examination, so the investigation and verification was not a necessary step in the ascertainment of any work-related injury. Since Wuxi Labor Bureau had already grasped a lot of evidence about what caused Guo's injury, it did not carry out any investigation in the restarted ascertainment of work-related injury, but directly notified Suzuo Company to produce evidence, which was not against the law. By directly incorporating the adjudication reasons of the said No.2 Judgment into the No. 0491 Decision according to the Regulation on Work-related Injury Insurance, Wuxi Labor Bureau just wanted to give the reasons for the new ascertainment but took them as the basis for the court judgment. The reason of Suzuo Company for appeal that Wuxi Labor Bureau failed to make investigation, took the court judgment as the basis and misapplied the law could not be established. 根据《工伤认定办法》第五条、第八条,劳动保障行政部门受理工伤认定申请后,只是对申请人提交的材料进行审查,然后根据需要对提供的证据进行调查核实,所以调查核实不是每个工伤认定程序中必经的程序。由于对第三人郭维军所受事故伤害的经过已经掌握了大量证据,被告无锡市劳动局在重新启动的工伤认定程序中,根据需要未再进行调查,而是径行通知原告铃王公司举证的做法,不违背法律规定。 0491号工伤认定书将2号终审判决书根据《工伤保险条例》规定阐述的裁判理由写入其中,只是要交代其重新认定的理由,并非以法院判决为依据。铃王公司关于无锡市劳动局不进行调查,将法院判决作为依据,是适用法律错误的起诉理由,不能成立。
In sum, the facts were clear and procedures were lawful in the No. 0491 Decision that was made by Wuxi Labor Bureau. Based thereon, the Nanchang People's Court adjudicated according to Article 54 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Law on October 30, 2005 that: 综上,被告无锡市劳动局作出的0491号工伤认定书,事实清楚,程序合法。据此,无锡市南长区人民法院依照行政诉讼法第五十四条第(一)项规定,于2005年10月 30日判决:
The No. 0491 Decision made by Wuxi Labor Bureau on April 30, 2005 should be maintained. 维持被告无锡市劳动局2005年4月 30日作出的0491号工伤认定决定书。
The 100 yuan of litigation costs should be borne by Suzuo Company. 本案诉讼费100元,由原告铃王公司负担。
After the judgment of the first instance was announced, Suzuo Company was dissatisfied with it and filed an appeal with the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City for the reasons that: although Wu Hong was the trade union chairman of Suzuo Company, he was authorized by Guo Weixin, Guo Weijun's younger sister, and went to Wuxi City Federation of Trade s for advice according to the assumptions of Guo Weixin. Wu Hong went to Wuxi City Federation of Trade s for consultancy not in the name of Suzuo Company's trade union chairman or in his own name, so the records made by Wuxi City Federation of Trade s for such consultancy were false and did not conform to the actuality at the time of consultancy. Guo went before the bulletin board without permission when he was on duty, fell to the ground suddenly without any external force or unsafe factor nor with work tension, so Guo's injury was not work-related. Suzuo Company had presented the evidence proving that Guo's injury was not work-related, however, Wuxi Labor Bureau still ascertained Guo's injury as work-related, which was a wrong application of law. As for Guo's injury, the court of the first instance had tried it successively for three times, and verified the same fact that Guo fell to the ground suddenly and got injured, and the evidence was the same as that presented by same witnesses, however, a judgment totally different from the former one was rendered this time, which was a wrong judgment. Suzuo Company pleaded the court of the second instance to revoke the judgment of the first instance and the No. 0491 Decision made by Wuxi Labor Bureau. 一审宣判后,铃王公司不服,向无锡市中级人民法院提出上诉,理由是:吴宏虽然是上诉人的工会主席,但其是受第三人郭维军的妹妹郭维新委托,并且根据郭维新的猜测,才到无锡市总工会咨询处理意见的。吴宏并非以工会主席身份或者个人名义到无锡市总工会咨询,无锡市总工会对此次咨询的记录是虚假的,记录内容不符合当时咨询的实际情况。郭维军在上班期间,擅自走到公告栏前,在无任何外力影响和不安全因素,也不存在可能工作紧张的情况下突然摔倒,其所受损伤不构成工伤。上诉人已经提供了郭维军受伤不是工伤的证据,被上诉人无锡市劳动局仍然给郭维军认定工伤,是适用法律错误。对郭维军受伤一事,一审法院前后审理过三次,事实都是郭维军突然摔倒受伤这同一个事实,证据也都是同样一些证人出具的同样证据,但本次审理却作出了与以前完全不同的判决,属于判决错误。请求二审撤销一审判决,撤销被上诉人作出的0491号工伤认定书。
Wuxi Labor Bureau argued that: the fact was clear, evidence was sufficient, law was correctly applied and procedures were lawfully followed in the No. 0491 Decision, and the judgment of the first instance was correct and should be maintained. The reasons for appeal of Suzuo Company could not be established. And the court of the second instance should reject the appeal and maintain the original judgment. 被上诉人无锡市劳动局答辩称:被上诉人对第三人郭维军所受伤害作出的 0491号工伤认定书,事实清楚,证据确凿,适用法律正确、程序合法,一审判决予以维持是正确的。上诉人的上诉理由不能成立,二审应当驳回上诉,维持原判。
Guo did not make any statement. 原审第三人郭维军未作陈述。
After comprehensive examination of the evidence presented by all the parties concerned as well as the materials for the former lawsuits, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City affirmed the facts as found out in the first instance. 无锡市中级人民法院经全面审查各方当事人提交的证据以及历次诉讼材料,确认了一审查明的案件事实。
The problems that should be solved in the second instance included: 1. whether the consultancy records made by Wuxi City Federation of Trade s could be used as an evidence of this case or not? 2. whether the court of the first instance had made a judgment different from the former one just based on the same facts and the same evidence? 二审应解决的问题有:1.无锡市总工会对吴宏咨询的记录能否作为本案的证据使用?2.一审是否存在根据同样事实、同样证据作出前后不一致判决的问题?
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
The Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City held that: 无锡市中级人民法院认为:
1. On June 7, 2000, Wu Hong stated Guo's injury at Wuxi City Federation of Trade s, and consulted the handling opinions for it, and Wuxi City Federation of Trade s kept the records. The statements of Wu Hong made in the records of Wuxi City Federation of Trade s were basically similar with the statements Wu Hong made when Wuxi Labor Bureau inquired about him. Wuxi Labor Bureau had investigated into the main witnesses provided by Guo, although there were conflicts in the testimonies about Guo's injury, the testimonies of some witnesses still conformed to the statements made by Wu Hong and Guo. Wu Hong was the trade union chairman of Suzuo Company, and there was no evidence proving that Wu Hong stated the facts and got the consultancy opinions at Wuxi City Federation of Trade s on behalf of Guo Weixin or proving that Wu's statements made at Wuxi City Federation of Trade s were affected by the former statements of Guo Weijun or Guo Weixin. Upon comprehensive consideration of the status of Wu Hong as the trade union chairman, the nature of the consultancy organ as well as the statements of Wu Hong, we should affirm that: for the purpose of maintaining the interests of employees, Wu Hong went to Wuxi City Federation of Trade s for obtaining the consultancy opinions about how to deal with Guo's injury as the trade union chairman of Suzuo Company. So the consultancy records about the statements of Wu Hong made at Wuxi City Federation of Trade s were true and should be confirmed as evidence. 一、2000年6月7日,吴宏到无锡市总工会陈述了第三人郭维军所受伤害的事实,咨询对此事的处理意见,无锡市总工会留下记录。无锡市总工会记录吴宏陈述的事实内容,与郭维军在被上诉人无锡市劳动局向其调查时陈述的事实基本一致。无锡市劳动局对郭维军提供的主要证人都进行过调查,各证人对郭维军受伤害经过所作证言虽然存在着矛盾,但仍有部分证人的证言与吴宏、郭维军陈述的事实相符。吴宏是上诉人铃王公司的工会主席,没有证据证明吴宏是代表郭维新前往无锡市总工会陈述事实、咨询意见,也没有证据证明吴宏在无锡市总工会陈述的事实受到了郭维军或者郭维新事前陈述的影响。综合考虑吴宏的工会主席身份、受咨询机关的性质和吴宏的陈述内容,应当认定:吴宏是为维护职工利益,才以铃王公司工会主席身份,前往无锡市总工会咨询对郭维军所受伤害的处理意见。故无锡市总工会对吴宏陈述事实所作的咨询记录具有真实性,应当确认为证据。
2. As to whether Guo's injury was work-related or not, Wuxi Labor Bureau had consecutively made three decisions, which were examined by the administrative proceedings of the court of the first instance. The task of people's courts in administrative proceedings is to examine the legality of the specific administrative act under action. In this case, the said task was to examine the legality of the No. 0491 Decision. Only by finding out the fact about Guo's injury and the evidence proving the said fact can the court of the first instance appraise whether the No. 0491 Decision was lawful or not. Although the fact about Guo's injury and the evidence proving the said fact did not change in the former three administrative lawsuits, the content of the last specific administrative act under action (namely, the act of ascertaining work-related injury) changed, therefore, the court of the first instance correspondingly made a different judgment about the legality of the specific administrative act under action. Suzuo Company filed the appeal for the reason that the court of the first instance had made a judgment different from the former ones just on the basis of the same facts and the same evidence, which could not be established. 二、第三人郭维军受伤后,对郭维军的伤情是否构成工伤,被上诉人无锡市劳动局曾先后作出过三个工伤认定,这三个工伤认定,都经过一审法院的行政诉讼程序。人民法院在行政诉讼中的任务,是审查被诉具体行政行为的合法性。在本案中,即是审查0491号工伤认定书的合法性。一审法院只有通过了解郭维军受伤的事实以及确认此事实的证据,才能对0491号工伤认定书是否合法作出评价。郭维军受伤的事实以及确认此事实的证据虽然在前后三个行政诉讼中没有变化,但是最后一个被诉具体行政行为(即工伤认定行为)的内容发生了变化,因此,一审相应地对被诉具体行政行为的合法性作出不同评价。上诉人铃王公司以一审对同样事实、同样证据作出不同判决为由,认为一审判决错误,该上诉理由不能成立。
In sum, considering that Suzuo Company fails to present the evidence proving that Guo got injured during office time and at the work place due to any matter irrelevant to regular production or work, Wuxi Labor Bureau made the decision of work-related injury by the No. 0491 Decision. The fact was clear, evidence was sufficient, the laws and regulations were correctly applied and the procedures were lawfully followed in the No. 0491 Decision, which was a lawful specific administrative act. It was correct for the judgment of the first instance to maintain the No. 0491 Decision. The reasons of Suzuo Company for appeal could not be established and should be rejected. Based thereon, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City adjudicated on February 20, 2006 according to Article 61 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Law that: 综上所述,鉴于上诉人铃王公司没有证据证明在工作时间、工作场所内,第三人郭维军因从事了与日常生产、工作无关的事务而受到伤害,被上诉人无锡市劳动局以0491号工伤认定书作出认定工伤的决定。0491号工伤认定书认定事实清楚,证据确凿,适用法律、法规正确,符合法定程序,是合法的具体行政行为。一审判决维持 0491号工伤认定书,是正确的。铃王公司的上诉理由不能成立,应当驳回。据此,无锡市中级人民法院依照行政诉讼法第六十一条第(一)项规定,于2006年2月20日判决:
JUDGMENT 
The appeal should be rejected and the original judgment should be maintained. 驳回上诉,维持原判。
The 100 yuan of case acceptance fee for the second instance should be borne by Suzuo Company.

 二审案件受理费100元,由上诉人铃王公司负担。
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese