[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh vs M/S Abhishekh Marbles P Ltd. ... on 13 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8309]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 539/2010
Ramesh S/o Shri Rupj Ji Kalbeliya, R/o Tunda, Tehsil Sarda,
District Rajasamand
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Abhishekh Marbles P Ltd., Director Shri Shivkaran Ji, Near
Chungi naka, Peeparada, Tehsil- Rajasmand, District Rajsamand
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shamboo Singh
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Saran
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
13/02/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.09.2006 passed by learned
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Rajsamand in
W.C. Case No.09/2005, whereby the claim filed by the appellant
was rejected while deciding the issue no.1 against the appellant.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant
filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1923') alleging therein that
he was working as a workman in the factory of the respondent
and used to earn Rs.4000/- per month as wages. It was a
specified claim by the appellant that he was a permanent
employee and was working under the respondent for the last three
years. The appellant further stated that on 08.04.2004 when he
was removing slurry from the marble cutting machine in the
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:11:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8309] (2 of 6) [CMA-539/2010]
marble factory of the respondent, he fell down due to which he
sustained injuries and ultimately suffered 75% permanent
disability. The appellant stated that he was 22 years of the age at
the time of the incident and therefore filed the claim for sum of
Rs.7,50,000/- on 08.02.2005.
3. Post issuance of such notice, the respondent filed a reply
denying the contents of the application and took a specific stand
that the appellant was never employed by the respondent and no
incident whatsoever took place on 08.04.2004 at the factory of
the respondent.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Commissioner framed four issues for adjudication, wherein issue
no.1 was as to whether the appellant was employed under the
respondent and whether the accident took place while he was in
the employment of the respondent? To prove his case, the
appellant got examined himself and his father Rupa as well as
exhibited five documents, namely, the notice sent to the
respondent and medical documents etc. On the other hand, the
respondent, in order to prove his defence, examined Shiv Karan,
the Director of the respondent-firm, as well as Sohan Lal, a
workman working under the respondent. The respondent also
exhibited various documents including the attendance register,
muster rolls, payment slips, bonus payment documents etc.
5. The learned Commissioner thereafter, proceeded to
adjudicate the matter and while deciding issue no.1, dismissed the
claim of the appellant and held that since the relationship of an
employee and employer was not established, there was no further
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:11:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8309] (3 of 6) [CMA-539/2010]
requirement of adjudication on other issues. Being aggrieved
against the same, the present appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant asserted that the appellant
was a permanent employee of the respondent and was working
under the respondent when the accident in question took place.
He further submitted that the learned Commissioner, though relied
heavily upon the documents submitted by the respondent,
however failed to consider the muster rolls as well as salary
register etc. submitted by the respondent pertained to employees,
who were working for more than 10 years of tenures under the
respondent-firm and not qua the employees, who were working
for a lesser period and for temporary employees. He averred that
the respondent failed to file any reply to the legal notice sent by
the counsel for the appellant while emphasizing that the appellant
was working under the respondent-firm and thus an adverse
inference was required to be drawn. He asserted that the
Commissioner has proceeded to adjudicate the matter while being
oblivious to the specific stand taken by the appellant in his claim
and during the examination also, wherein appellant asserted that
he was an employee of the respondent-firm. He further asserted
that the above mentioned stand was affirmed by the evidence of
his father, Rupa, who also appeared in the witness box. He
therefore prays that the order impugned deserves to be quashed
and set aside and the claim of the appellant deserves to be
allowed in toto.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while
supporting the impugned order, asserted that the learned
Commissioner has considered the entire evidence threadbare and
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:11:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8309] (4 of 6) [CMA-539/2010]
dismissed the claim of the appellant. He further argued that it was
the burden of the appellant to prove that the employer-employee
relationship existed and he failed to discharge the same. He
further submitted that the respondent, on the other hand, had
submitted the documents pertaining to all the employees engaged
under him, wherein the name of the appellant was missing and,
therefore, the learned Commissioner has rightly decided the issue
in hand and subsequently dismissed the claim of the appellant.
8. Heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused
the material available on record.
9. The only issue for adjudication is as to whether the appellant
was able to prove that he was an employee under the respondent-
firm based upon the documents submitted and the evidence
available on record? Needless to emphasize that the benefits
under the Act of 1923 are available only to employees, who were
engaged by a certain class of employers for the purpose of grant
of compensation in case of injury by accident.
10. In the present case, as per the claim of the appellant, he
was a permanent employee and have been working for the last
three years under the respondent-firm at the time of incident in
question. To prove the above-mentioned averments, he appeared
along with his father in the witness box, however, neither any
document was placed on record nor was any application filed by
the appellant for summoning of any additional record from the
respondent before the learned Commissioner. The respondent,
on the other hand, placed on record the muster rolls, the
attendance register, the payment register and the register setting
out the details of bonus granted to the employees. The
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:11:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8309] (5 of 6) [CMA-539/2010]
above-mentioned registers bear the signatures of the employees
and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The respondent,
apart from examining himself, also got examined Sohan Lal, who
was shown to be employed under the respondent for many years
together and whose name was also shown in the above mentioned
registers. Sohan Lal, in his statement, named other employees
and not the appellant while emphasizing that the appellant never
worked with the respondent. Though the counsel for the appellant
tried to assert that the registers and documents submitted were
pertaining to the employees who were working for the last 10
years, however, neither such specific argument was raised before
the learned Commissioner nor was any such question was asked
to the respondent-Shivkaran, Director of respondent-firm, who
appeared in the witness box before the learned Commissioner. A
perusal of the cross-examination of Shivkaran reveals that no
question challenging the documents in question was asked to him.
Thus, the document submitted by the respondent remained
unrebutted. The learned Commission has rightly considered the
evidence available on record and given a finding that there was no
existence of any employer-employee relationship between the
respondent and the appellant nor any evidence to prove that the
accident took place during the course of employment was placed
on record by the appellant.
11. No substantial question of law is involved in the present
appeal. The appeal is thus, bereft of merit and the same is
dismissed. The order impugned dated 26.09.2006 passed by the
learned Commissioner, Workmen's compensation Act, Rajsamand
in W.C. Case No.09/2005 is upheld.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:11:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8309] (6 of 6) [CMA-539/2010]
12. All pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.
13. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
17-neha/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:11:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
