Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Gupta vs Jagannath Dutta on 16 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 W.P. (L) No.1494 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 1494 of 2023
Jitendra Gupta, aged about 39 years, s/o Dwarika Prasad
Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Gitanjali Food Products, Prabhat
Colony, P.O.- Chas, P.S.- Chas, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner
Versus
Jagannath Dutta, aged about 30 years, s/o, Sri Tarapado Dutta,
r/o House No. 128, Swami Vivekanand Road, P.O. & P.S.-
Chas, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand
.... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India with the prayer to quash/set aside the
award dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer-
Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation Commissioner,
Bokaro in E.C. Case No. 04 of 2019 whereby and where under,
Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation Commissioner,
Bokaro directed the writ petitioner being the employer of the
respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.5,92,222/- along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e.
18.02.2019 to till the payment of compensation amount and
further to pay the actual medical expenditure of Rs.1,11,551/-
incurred by the respondent who was the applicant before the
Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation Commissioner,
Bokaro.
3. The case of the respondent-applicant-claimant is that the
claimant-applicant was employed as a machine operator in the
food products unit of the writ petitioner in the name and style of
M/s. Gitanjali Food Products since the year 2011. On 18.02.2019
while the respondent was working as such in the sewai preparing
machine, there was an accident which ultimately resulted in the
hand of the applicant cut off from elbow. The respondent was
treated in K.M. Memorial Hospital, Chas, Bokaro but he was
referred to Apollo Hospital, Kolkata. While being admitted to
Apollo Hospital, Kolkata on the way, the health condition of the
respondent deteriorated and he was admitted to Durgapur
Mission Hospital and while being admitted to Durgapur Mission
Hospital, the respondent informed the concerned authority that
he suffered accidental injuries in course of his employment in the
unit of the writ petitioner in the name and style of M/s. Gitanjali
Food Products.
4. The Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation
Commissioner, Bokaro considered the settled principle of law that
the onus is upon the employer to prove the condition necessary
for excluding a person from the category of a workman and by
that the employer has to establish two conditions, one is that the
workman is casual in nature and the workman is not employed
for the purpose of employer's trade or business and the onus is on
the employer to prove these conditions and thus, considering the
evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the applicant
who is the respondent of this writ petition; has succeeded in
proving that applicant was an employer of the opposite party
M/s. Gitanjali Food Products. The Labour Court-cum- Employee's
Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro upon filing of written
statement by the opposite party before it who is the writ petitioner
before this Court also considered the contention of the writ
petitioner-employer that employer denied that the claimant
workman was his employee.
5. The Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation
Commissioner, Bokaro on the basis of the rival pleadings of the
parties framed altogether seven issues.
6. Issue no.3 was whether the applicant/claimant is a workman
within the meaning of the Act in the Factory of opposite party?
and answered the said issue no.3 in affirmative.
7. The Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation
Commissioner, Bokaro also held that the case is maintainable and
there is valid cause of action for the case. The accident arose out of
and in course of employment of the claimant-respondent and he is
entitled to the amount which has been directed by it to the writ
petitioner to be paid and thus made the said direction for
payment.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation Commissioner,
Bokaro failed to appreciate the fact that there is discrepancy
regarding the age of the claimant in the document of treatment of
the sole respondent issued by the Durgapur Mission Hospital and
Apollo Hospital, Kolkata regarding the age of the claimant. It is
next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation Commissioner,
Bokaro failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent-claimant
failed to produce any document regarding payment of salary by
the writ petitioner herein. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer
made by the writ petitioner be allowed.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the award dated
16.02.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court-cum- Employee's
Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in E.C. Case No. 04 of 2019.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is
a settled principle of law that the burden is upon the employer to
establish that the claimant is not employee under him but in this
case, there is documentary evidence in shape of the treatment
records of the victim immediately after the said accident with
Durgapur Mission Hospital wherein it has been categorically
mentioned that the claimant sustained injury while working with
the establishment of the writ petitioner in the name and style of
M/s. Gitanjali Food Products. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent that it is highly unlikely that
somebody will make a false claim of employment in a small unit
immediately after the occurrence of accident. It is then submitted
by the learned counsel for the respondent that the writ petitioner-
employer has not brought the register of employees before the
Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation Commissioner,
Bokaro nor produced any particulars of the employee engaged by
him. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without
any merit be dismissed.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent
to mention here that Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has been
enacted with the objective for providing for the payment by
certain classes of the employer to their employee for
compensation of injury by accident. Section 30 of Employees
Compensation Act provides the forum for appeal to the High
Court against the orders of the Commissioner under the
Employees Compensation Act but instead of filing an appeal, the
petitioner has filed this writ application. As per Section 30 of
Employees Compensation Act, the sine-qua-non for entertaining an
appeal under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act is that
there has to be a substantial question of law involved in the
appeal. Neither there is any pleading nor could any submission be
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is any
substantial question of law involved in this appeal.
11. After going through the materials in the record, this Court finds
that there is no perversity committed by the Labour Court-cum-
Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in coming to
the conclusion that the respondent was the employee of the
petitioner on the basis of the facts available in the record both oral
and documentary including the documents issued by the
Durgapur Mission Hospital wherein immediately after the
occurrence of accident, it has been mentioned that the claimant
sustained injuries while working in the food products
establishment of the writ petitioner.
12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that in the absence of any substantial question of law or any
illegality in the award dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned
Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation Commissioner,
Bokaro in E.C. Case No. 04 of 2019 as also the fact that there is
provision of appeal also under Section 30 of Employees
Compensation Act, 1923, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the award dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court-cum- Employee's Compensation
Commissioner, Bokaro in E.C. Case No. 04 of 2019 in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is
dismissed.
14. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records
be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
15. In view of the dismissal of this writ petition, interlocutory
application, if any, stands dismissed being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 16th January, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
