M/S Combitic Global Caplet Pvt Ltd vs Pyare Lal Chauhan
2023 Latest Caselaw 633 Del

                                          Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001545



                                 *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                            FAO 578/2016
                                                                      Date of Decision: 23.02.2023
                            IN THE MATTER OF:
                            M/S COMBITIC GLOBAL CAPLET PVT LTD ..... Appellant
                                              Through: Mr. Vikas Deep, Advocate

                                                         Versus

                            PYARE LAL CHAUHAN                                      ..... Respondent
                                            Through:


                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
                                                               JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 45985/2016 (delay)

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 151 CPC, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 5 days in re-filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 5 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 578/2016 and CM APPL. 45983/2016 (stay)

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'EC Act'), the appellant (alleged employer) has assailed order dated

Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:02.03.2023 17:24:43 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001545

12.09.2016/14.09.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation in Case No.WCA/CD/7/12/1839, vide which the claim application filed by the respondent/claimant seeking injury compensation was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner erred in allowing the claim of the respondent, as though the respondent had averred himself to be an employee of the appellant, the claim was denied by the appellant and the respondent failed to place on record any document in support of his averment.

3. On a perusal of the appeal paper book as well as the Commissioner's Records, it is discernible that in the claim application, the respondent had claimed himself to be working with the appellant as Tablet Machine Man for making drug tablets. It was averred that he was employed in the year 2005 and besides drawing wages @ Rs.5,000/- per month, he was earning approximately Rs.4,000/- per month as overtime. On 05.05.2007, in the absence of any helper, the respondent was forced by the appellant to operate the machine, when a rack of 55-60 kgs fell on his left leg causing grievous injuries. The appellant's management rushed him to Chauhan Hospital, Kath Mandi, near Old Court Sonipat, Haryana. On 06.07.2007, the respondent was forcibly declared medically fit by a doctor of the appellant. However, later, he was treated at different hospitals. When he raised a claim for compensation before the appellant's management, the same was denied. Reportedly, the appellant was earlier known as M/s. Unisule Pharmaceutical Pvt. and only in the year 2009, its name was changed to the present one. The respondent specifically averred that the

Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:02.03.2023 17:24:43 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001545

appellant's management did not provide any ID Card, ESIC, Gratuity, Bonus, etc.

4. Pertinently, besides placing on record his medical documents alongwith the claim application, the respondent had also filed photographs showing him to be working on tablet making machine No.16, station No.27, where he was employed as machine man. The photographs were statedly taken by his co-worker from mobile phone as the mobile phone was allowed inside the appellant's premises. The respondent also placed on record certificate of operation of the machine duly signed by the Production Manager & other officials of the appellant as well as flow sheet of the production on various dates. The documents were put to the appellant's witness who simply denied the same without producing any document to the contrary.

5. Learned Commissioner, after considering the aforesaid, passed the impugned order against the appellant, directing deposit of compensation amount of Rs.79,561/- alongwith simple interest @12% per annum from the filing of the claim application i.e., 20.03.2012 till realization. Additionally, Rs.10,000/- were allowed in favour of the respondent as medical expenses.

6. Insofar as the appellant has raised an issue that the respondent was not its employee, this Court deems it expedient to outline the scope of appeal filed under Section 30 of the EC Act, as delineated in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514. In the captioned case, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the scope of interference in an appeal filed under Section 30 of EC Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of facts proved either

Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:02.03.2023 17:24:43 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001545

way, are not to be likely interfered with. Relevant excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:-

"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law.

12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case."

Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:02.03.2023 17:24:43 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001545

7. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith the pending application. Let the amount statedly deposited with the learned Commissioner on 19.12.2016/20.12.2016 be released to the respondent/claimant, if not already done.

8. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Commissioner for information.

(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 23, 2023 na

Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:02.03.2023 17:24:43