High Court of Delhi in one of its recent judgments dismissed an appeal and ruled in favour of a workmen stating if employer- employee relationship is well established workman is entitled to compensation.
The observations were made by single -judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri in an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
In the matter of MAHA LAXMI HOSIERY V. GOVIND SINGH & ANR the appellant filed an appeal seeking to set aside the order passed by ld. Commissioner, Employee Compensation, Delhi which directed the appellant to pay compensation of ₹2,87,136/- to the respondent (workmen) against the injuries suffered by him during the course of his employment.
The workman while working on the machine got his foot stuck and fell down due to which he suffered 60% of disability and filed for compensation and was awarded for the same. Aggrieved by the above order the appellant filed an appeal before the high court seeking to set aside the order.
COUNSEL'S SUBMISSIONS
Ld. Counsel for appellant contended that the workmen had failed to prove the onus of establishing employer employee relationship , and made reliance on the case of Automobile
Assoc Upper India v. P.O. Labour Court II & Anr. Counsel further submitted that ld. Commissioner wrongfully made reliance on the inspectors report, and the statement of other workman could not be relied on as he deposed on the directions of the workman.
Counsel for respondent negated above contentions of appellant and supported previous impugned order by submitting that workman had duly proved the employer- employee relationship on basis of inspector’s report and statement of co-workman. He made reliance to the case of Koli Mansukh Rana v. Patel Natha Ramji.
HIGH COURT'S OBSERVATIONS:
High court observed that the workmen was employed as a machine man by the appellant at a salary of ₹8000pm/- ,and during the course were not provided any legal facilities like appointment letter, attendance card, I-card, leave book etc. The appellant had filed documents of copies of attendance register and payment of wage register before the learned Commissioner to disprove the claim of the workman that he was employed with the firm(s) in question. In this regard, reliance was placed by the appellant on the decision in Automobile Assoc v. Upper India (Supra) which held that the workman either by himself or through his witnesses can claim his employment by producing appointment letter or any circumstantial evidence .
Contrary to above the court said that the supra case could not be relied on as the facts of present case are different which states that no ID card, attendance card or appointment letter was ever provided to them which is also supported by the witness’s statement
Further court opined that while undertaking the reports of Labour Inspector, Inspector of Factories and ,Deputy Director, ESIC that the learned Commissioner rightly reached at the conclusion that workman was working with the management in question at the time of accident and that the accident occurred during the course of his employment .
Court negated the contention raised by appellant’s counsel that ld. Commissioner wrongfully relied on inspectors report by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit alias Ranbir Kaur and Others which says “that in proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable and that the commissioner can lay down his own procedures and for the purpose of arriving at the truth, rely upon such documents which are produced before it.”
Court dismissed the the appeal stating that the workman has successfully established his case before the ld. Commissioner.
CASE TITLE: MAHA LAXMI HOSIERY V. GOVIND SINGH & ANR
CASE DETAILS: FAO 548/2016 and CM APPLs. 37377/2021, 43984/2016
CORAM : Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
No comments:
Post a Comment