Karnataka High Court
Siddappa S/O. Jadeppa @ Jadagappa ... vs Shivabasu S/O. Balappa Handigund on 11 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573
MFA No. 22492 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22492 OF 2012 (WC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. JADEPPA @ JADAGAPPA MURAKUMBI,
AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O. MUDALGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHIVABASU S/O. BALAPPA HANDIGUND,
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. & DRIVER,
R/O. MUDALGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL ...RESPONDENTS
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R1;
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2012, PASSED
IN W.C.A. NO.56/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-1,
BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573
MFA No. 22492 of 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is
present.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Belagavi (hereinafter
referred to as the "the Labour Commissioner"), did not
consider the evidence produced by the appellant. Based on
the criminal Court records, he rejected the application.
Therefore, on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo,
claimants have challenged said order.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that he was driver, driving the tractor and
trailers belonging to respondent No.1. On the date of
incident, he was working under respondent No.1.
Therefore, he is entitled for compensation, since there
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573
exists relationship of employer and employee between
himself and respondent No.1.
5. Learned counsel for appellant further submits
that the Labour Commissioner, after recording the
evidence of the appellant and reconsidering the evidence
and materials placed on record, held that the appellant
failed to prove that he was a laborer working under
respondent No.1. There was no relationship between
employer and employee between respondent No.1 and the
appellant. On that ground, the Labour Commissioner
rejected the application of appellant's claiming
compensation. Substantial question of law involved in this
case and prayed to admit the appeal.
6. I have perused the records i.e. copy of the
impugned order and grounds of appeal.
7. It appears that the appellant filed a complaint
regarding the incident and the said complaint was
registered at Mudalgi Police station. Thereafter, the
appellant filed private complaint No.176/2007 in JMFC
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573
Court, Gokak. The said case was referred to police for
investigation. Police submitted 'B' false report. On that
basis the Labour Commissioner has disposed of the
matter.
8. The petitioner got examined PW-1 to PW-3 and
got marked 17 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-17. To rebut the
said evidence respondent No.1, the alleged employer got
examined himself as RW-1. Upon appreciating the
evidence, the Labour Commissioner observed that the
appellant was not at all serving as a driver of the tractor
and trailer belonging to respondent No.1. It was also held
that the appellant had not suffered any injuries while
working with respondent No.1. The said material facts has
to be proved by employee to claim compensation.
9. It appears that the appellant filed a private
complaint in the JMFC Mudalagi Court, which was referred
to the Police for investigation. After conducting an enquiry,
the Police submitted a 'B' false report. Considering the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573
materials available on record, the Labour Commissioner
rejected the claim petition with valid reasons.
10. Based on the materials available on record, the
Labour Commissioner dismissed the claim petition. There
is no substantial question of law to admit the appeal. The
grounds of the appeal are insufficient to admit the appeal
to reconsider the order of Labour Commissioner; main
points i.e., employee and employer relationship itself was
not proved by the claimant. He was also failed to prove
that during the course of employment he sustained
injuries. These are facts of the case, which were not
proved by the appellant. Under these circumstances,
appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed at the admission stage.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
RHR /CT-AN
