Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Chand vs Ramesh on 5 September, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
FAO-2526-2023 (O&M) sds
117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-2526-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 05.09.2024
MeharChand 2 sss Appellant
versus
Ramesh ee Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
ke
Present :- Mr. Jitender K.Sehrawat, Advocate
for the appellant.
ke
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1 Employer is in appeal against award dated 14.03.2023 passed
by Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short
'1923 Act'), Hisar. Claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation
claiming that he was working as Raj Mistri under the guidance and
employment of respondent i.e. appellant on daily wages of Rs.500/-.
Appellant is a contractor having obtained contract for repairing of drain at
village Asodapur, District Panipat.
2 Claimant was employed as Raj Mistri on the said site. On
10.03.2019 while claimant was working on the site, he met with an accident
by crusher mixing machine. He received injuries and his left leg was
fractured. The claim petition was resisted by employer-appellant claiming
that the claimant was never employed with him.
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
FAO-2526-2023 (O&M) 2s:
3 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties Commissioner
framed following issues :-
"1. Whether there was relationship of employer and employee
between the respondent and the applicant at the time of alleged
accident?
2. Whether the accident was occurred out of and in the course of
employment with respondent No.1?
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the compensation, as claimed
in the claim application? If so, to what amount and from whom?
4. Relief."
4 In order to prove employment claimant examined PW-1 and
PW-2 who were working along with the claimant on the site. Believing
their testimony, Commissioner held that the claimant was employed with
the appellant and answered issue No.1 & 2 in favour of the claimant.
Compensation of Rs.79,270/- along with expenses of Rs.3,000/- stand
awarded in favour of the claimant.
5 Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed findings
recorded by Commissioner on the issue of employer-employee relationship.
He submits that even though the claimant examined PW-1 & PW-2,
however, failed to furnish any documentary proof with respect to
employment with the appellant and thus Commissioner erred in answering
issue of relationship between the parties.
6 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone
through the records of the case.
FAO-2526-2023 (O&M) 3n
In order to appreciate the legal plea being raised by the counsel
for the appellant with respect to relationship it will be apt to peruse the bare
provision of law which reads as under :-
"2(1)(dd) "employee" means a person, who is-
(i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways
Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative
district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such
capacity as is specified in Schedule IT; or
(ii) (a) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship,
(b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft,
(c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other
capacity in connection with a motor vehicle,
(d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is
employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule IT
and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is
registered in India; or
(iii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule IT, whether
the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this
Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing;
but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of
the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to any employee who
has been injured shall, where the employee is dead, include a reference to
his dependants or any of them; ]
Perusal of bare provision would reveal that the employment as
contemplated under the 1923 Act is not necessarily required to be written.
The contract of employment can be oral, expressed or implied as well.
In view of overwhelming evidence brought on record by the
claimant in form of testimony of co-employees, who appeared as PW-1 &
PW-2 Commissioner rightly answered the issues with respect to relationship
of employer-employee between the appellant and the claimant.
FAO-2526-2023 (O&M) 4:
10 In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere in the findings recorded by the Commissioner.
11 Appeal is dismissed.
( PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
05.09.2024
Pooja sharma-I
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
