The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Maha Laxmi Hosiery vs Govind Singh & Anr consisting of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while hearing a case u/s 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (“the Act”) observed that in proceedings before the Commissioner under the Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable.
Facts
The respondent No.1/Govind Singh (‘the workman’) had filed a claim application seeking compensation under the Act for the injury suffered by him during his employment with the firms namely, M/s Sanjeev Hosiery and M/s Maha Laxmi Hosiery. It was claimed that he was working as a Machine Man since January 2003/November 2005 and his last drawn salary was Rs.8,000/- per month. At the time of the incident, he was about 33 years of age and had suffered disability of about 60%. His services were terminated on the same day i.e., the date of the incident.
Procedural History
The learned Commissioner, while passing the impugned order allowed the claim petition of the workman and awarded him compensation of Rs.2,87,136/- along with interest @ 12% till deposit.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: The workman failed to discharge the onus of proving the employer-employee relationship. The reliance on the statement of Sh. Rakesh Sharma, a co-workman, was misplaced as he had deposed on the directions of the workman. The learned Commissioner ought not to have placed reliance on the Inspectors’ reports as the same were not proved on record by the scribe of the reports but rather by the workman himself.
Respondent: The workman had duly proved the employer-employee relationship based on Inspectors’ reports and statement of a co-workman. In the proceedings before the Labour Court, the workman was unable to place on record material in support of his case/lead evidence, and the issues came to be decided by the learned Presiding Officer in absence of cogent material. The procedure before the Employee Compensation Commissioner is summary in nature and thus rules of evidence are not to be strictly followed.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that prior to approaching the learned Employee Compensation Commissioner, the workman had also raised an industrial dispute regarding his termination. But the workman’s claim was dismissed by the Labour Court. The issue regarding the employer-employee relationship was framed in course of the proceedings and decided against the workman as that he neither deposed himself nor led evidence in support of his case.
The Bench went on to observe that in Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit alias Ranbir Kaur & Ors. the Apex Court held 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. 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.
Judgment
The Bench, having concluded that the workman was able to establish his case before the learned Commissioner, dismissed the appeal. The learned Commissioner was directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the workman without delay.
Case: Maha Laxmi Hosiery vs Govind Singh & Anr
Citation: FAO 548/2016 and CM APPLs. 37377/2021, 43984/2016
Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Decided on: 3rd June 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
