[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M)Hanuman vs M/S Super State & Co on 19 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
FAO No.1611 of 1997 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on 15th of January, 2026
Pronounced on 19th of March, 2026
Uploaded on 19th of March, 2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
FAO No.1611 of 1997
Hanuman ....Appellant
Versus
Super Slate & Company .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Amandeep Rana, Advocate
for the respondent.
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
Present appeal is directed against order, dated 21.04.1997
passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
(now known as the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and hereinafter
referred to as '1923 Act').
2. Appellant filed claim application seeking compensation on
account of the injury suffered by him in an accident arising out of and during
the course of his employment with respondent.
2.1. As per the claimant, he was employed with respondent for a
monthly salary of Rs.1,290/-. On 22.08.1995 while working on Machine
No.4 with Om Parkash, Foreman, in Shift B, he suffered an injury and lost
his left eye. He was rendered permanently disabled and as per Schedule I
appended to the 1923 Act, he needs to be compensated for 40% permanent
disability suffered by him.
3. The claim application was resisted by the respondent disputing
employer-employee relationship.
4. Vide impugned order, Commissioner found that the claimant
failed to prove his employment with the respondent. There being no proof
of employment, the Commissioner dismissed the claim application filed by
the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings
recorded by the Commissioner. He submits that there is an overwhelming
evidence produced on record by the Claimant in form of the document
Exhibit AW-1/1 which was signed by Vijay Somani. The best person to
rebut the same was Vijay Somani, who was managing the affairs of the
respondent/employer. Vijay Somani opted not to appear before the
Commissioner. Thus, the Tribunal was bound to draw adverse inference
against the employer, yet the claim application filed by the claimant was
dismissed.
6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that the workman
miserably failed to prove his employment. The two witnesses examined by
the appellant, failed to prove his employment. The Commissioner after
analysing the evidence concluded that there were major contradictions
between testimony of AW-1 and AW-2, and rightly dismissed the claim
application.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone
through records of the case.
8. As per the case of the claimant, he was working in 'B Shift'
under the supervision of Om Parkash, Foreman, on the fateful day. While
Om Parkash was removing bearing from shaft of machine No.4 with the help
of chisel and hammer, a tiny particle broke from chisel and hit the left eye of
the applicant. He lost his eye. In order to prove his case, claimant examined
Dharminder son of Ram Singh as AW-1. As per AW-1, he worked with the
respondent in the year 1992 and the claimant was employed with respondent
even prior thereto. Claimant himself appeared as AW3. He reiterated his
version as spelled out in the claim application. He produced Exhibit AW-1/1
which is a certificate issued under the signatures of V. Somani, Manager on
23.08.1995. The contents thereof, read as under:
"It is certified that Sh. Hanuman S/o Sh. Bikha Singh R/o
Mayan, Dist. Rewari, Edge Cutting Machine Operator who was
working with M/s Super Slate & Co. Khol, Prop. of Sh. Ashok
Somany met with an accident on 22nd August, 1995 at about 7.30
PM (4 to 12 shift) and got a minor injury on his left yet in my
presence.
Sd/-
Manager
9. Respondent in order to rebut the evidence adduced by the
claimant, examined RW-1 Bhata Ram son of Mata Din, who admitted that
Vijay Somani and Ashok Somani are two brothers. The factory gets supply
of stone from Kund Mines. Ashok Somani is licensee of mines, who
supplies stone in the establishment owned by Vijay Somani.
9.1. On being asked as to who was operating machine on
22.08.1995, RW-1 feigned ignorance despite the fact that he claimed that he
was employed as Foreman with the respondent since the year 1987. He,
however, admitted that on 22.08.1995, Om Parkash, Foreman was on duty in
B Shift. RW2 Madan Sharma appeared as attorney holder of Vijay Somani.
He claimed that he has brought Wage Register for the period commencing
from November, 1993 till October, 1995 and claimed that the name of the
claimant does not figure in the same. He admitted in his cross-examination
that the company does not give appointment letter to any employee. He
admitted in his cross-examination that Super Slate and Foundry are sister
concerns and that Ashok Somani and Vijay Somani are brothers. He also
admitted that he has not brought any record of Super Slate and Company.
Despite Vijay Somani being hale & hearty he opted not to appear in the
witness-box.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Commissioner
completely misread the evidence on record. It is admitted case of the
respondent that they did not issue appointment letter. Though RW-2 claimed
that he has brought the wage register for the month commencing from
November, 1993 till October, 1995, but later on admitted that the same does
not relate to Super Slate and Company. RW-1 admitted that Om Parkash,
Foreman, was working in B Shift on the fateful day which lends credence to
version of the claimant. In order to prove his employment and the injury,
claimant produced document AW-1/1. It was proved to have been written by
Vijay Somani, who opted not to enter into the witness-box. Thus, employer
despite being in possession of best piece of evidence to rebut AW-1/1
withheld the same.
11. In these circumstances, the Commissioner ought to have drawn
adverse inference against employer and should not have ignored
overwhelming evidence produced on record by the claimant.
12. In view of above, this Court finds that the findings recorded by
the Commissioner on Issue No.1 cannot be sustained and are hereby set
aside. Claimant is held to be an employee under respondent who suffered
injury in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment.
13. Disability of the appellant in the accident arising out of the
employment, stands proved. In terms of Schedule I appended to 1923 Act,
he has suffered 40% disability for having lost his left eye. Accordingly, he is
entitled to compensation in terms of Section 4 in vogue on the date of
accident, which reads as under:
"4. Amount of compensation.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this
Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-
(a) where death results an amount equal to [fifty per cent.]
from the injury of the monthly wages of the
deceased workman multiplied by
the relevant factor;
or
an amount of [fifty thousand
rupees], whichever is more;
(b) where permanent total an amount equal to [sixty per cent] of
disablement results the monthly wages of the injured
from the injury workman multiplied by the relevant
factor;
or
an amount of [sixty thousand rupees],
whichever is more;
Explanation I.- For the purposes of Cl. (a) and Cl. (b), "relevant
factor", in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the
second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of
that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the
completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday
immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due;
Explanation II.- Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed [two
thousand rupees], his monthly wages for the purposes of Clause (a) and
clause (b) shall be deemed to be [two thousand rupees] only,
xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx"
14. Thus, the compensation payable is as under:
40% of 60/100 X1290 X 215.28 (Age 26 years) = Rs.66,650.68/-.
15. The claimants shall also be entitled for interest @ 12% per
annum in terms of the provisions as contained under Section 4A of the Act
for the period commencing from 30 days after the accident i.e., 30 days after
22.08.1995, till the date of actual realization.
16. The claimants are also held entitled to penalty which shall be
50% of the compensation computed by this Court herein-above. The penalty
amount shall bear interest @ 7% from the date of passing of the award till
the date of actual realization.
17. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
March 19, 2026 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
