Delhi High Court
M/S Sunder Chemical And Agarbatti ... vs Balwant Singh on 17 July, 2018
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17th July, 2018
+ FAO 284/2015 & CM No.18346/2015
M/S SUNDER CHEMICAL AND
AGARBATTI WORKS PVT LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Surender Tyagi, Adv.
versus
BALWANT SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rama Shankar and Mr. Saurabh,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J U D G M E N T(ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner,
Employees' Compensation whereby compensation of Rs.95,004/- has been
awarded to the respondent.
2. The respondent instituted an application for compensation before the
Commissioner, Employees' Compensation on the averments that he was
working as a Chowkidar with respondent since 04 th April, 1990 with last
drawn wages of Rs.5,000/- per month; the respondent was posted at the
godown/residence of the respondent at D-87, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi after
the shifting of the respondent's institution to Himachal Pradesh; on 10 th
August, 2009, the respondent was picking big drums when he skid and fell
down on the floor which resulted in grievous injuries; the respondent's left
leg was operated on 21st April, 2012; the appellant terminated the
respondent on 30th March, 2013; the respondent demanded the compensation
and medical expenses by letter dated 18th April, 2013.
3. The appellant did not file any written statement to the claim of the
appellant. However, the appellant submitted one page letter dated 21st May,
2014 to the Commissioner stating that the appellant's operations stopped as
back as in the year 2010 and the respondent never worked with the
appellant. The appellant stopped appearing before the Commissioner
thereafter and was proceeded ex parte. The respondent led ex parte evidence
to prove his claim whereas no evidence was led by the appellant.
4. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation passed an ex parte
award against the appellant holding the appellant liable to pay compensation
of Rs.95,004/- along with interest @ 12% per annum.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent never
worked with the appellant and has no concern with the appellant's company.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks setting aside of the ex parte order
and permission to lead evidence to prove his defense. It is further submitted
that the appellant stopped appearing under the impression that the appellant
will receive fresh notice/summons from the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation to appear at the stage of evidence.
6. This Court is not satisfied with the justification given by the appellant
for not appearing before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation after
the filing of the reply. The prayer for setting aside of the ex parte order is,
therefore, rejected.
7. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal
which is sine qua non of Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act.
That apart, this Court has not find any merit in the appellant's case who has
not led any evidence before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation
to prove his case.
8. The appeal is dismissed. The pending application is disposed of.
9. The appellant has deposited Rs.1,64,319/- with the Registrar General
of this Court.
10. List for disbursement of the compensation amount on 10 th August,
2018.
11. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties under
the signatures of the Court Master.
JULY 17, 2018 J.R.MIDHA, J.
ak
