Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Fazlu Rahman Ansari - Appellant
Versus
M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11922 of 2018 (Arising From SLP (C) No.13471 of 2015)
Decided On : 07-12-2018
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Relationship of employer and employee - Definition of employment
Fact of the Case:
The High Court's findings on the relationship of employer and employee and the occurrence of the accident were deemed unsustainable by the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's findings were found to be not sustainable as it ignored the definition contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.
Issues: The issues revolved around the establishment of the relationship of employer and employee and the occurrence of the accident, which were found to be not sustainable by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court restored the order passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court, emphasizing the importance of considering the definition of employment under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation was restored while setting aside the High Court's order. No costs were awarded.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. In our opinion the findings recorded by the High Court as to the relationship of employer and employee has not been established as well as that the accident has not been proved are not sustainable. The High Court has ignored the definition contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, which would cover the kind of employment by virtue of which the workman was rendering the services, even services through sub-contractors are covered in the definition.
4. With respect to the accident also, we find that the High Court has jumped to the conclusion, without due consideration of the evidence on record. In our opinion, there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal before the High Court. The High Court has illegally interfered with the finding of fact based on discussion of evidence recorded by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation.
5. In the facts and circumstances, we restore the order passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
8. There shall be no orders as to costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
