Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
SANJAY GUPTA – APPELLANT
Versus
AMAR SINGH – RESPONDENT
FAO No. 323 OF 2017
Decided On : 31-05-2017
Employees Compensation Act - Employer's Liability - Section 30 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Employees Compensation Act, 1923, Section 30 - The court discussed the liability of the employer under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, and the evidence presented to establish the employer's connection to the business premises and the accident. The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the jurisdiction of the Employees Compensation Commissioner in arriving at conclusions based on the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee, filed a claim petition under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, alleging denial of benefits and an accident during employment resulting in injury. The appellant, the employer, disputed the connection to the business and the occurrence of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's connection to the business premises and the occurrence of the accident were established based on the evidence presented. The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the Employees Compensation Commissioner in arriving at conclusions based on the evidence.
Issues: Dispute over employer's connection to the business premises, occurrence of the accident, and liability under the Employees Compensation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing the employer's liability and the jurisdiction of the Employees Compensation Commissioner in arriving at conclusions based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Employees Compensation Commissioner to grant compensation to the respondent based on the evidence presented.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This First Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is filed by the appellant/employer against the impugned judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner dated 21.02.2017 by which the claim petition filed by the respondent/employee has been allowed and he has been granted compensation as per the statutory formula for a sum of Rs.4,99,411/- along with the interest at 12% per annum.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent/claimant pleaded that he was working with the appellant carrying on business as sole vproprietor of M/s Anupam Packers at F-37, Sector-2, DSIIDC Bawana, New Delhi-110039. It was pleaded that respondent/claimant was working as Dye Machine Operator at wages of Rs.7000/- per month. It was further pleaded that respondent/claimant was denied benefits under the applicable legal provisions including minimum wages, ESI, PF, Bonus, Casual Leave etc. It was then pleaded that on 23.07.2012 during the course of employment when the respondent/claimant was working on the Dye Cutting Machine, and which was defective since the last few days, respondent/claimant met with an accident with the machine whereby his hand got crushed in the machine. It was pleaded that the respondent/claimant was taken to Siddharth Hospital at Kanjhawala road at Bawana, Delhi-110039 for his treatment but neither the management nor the doctor informed the police in this regard. The respondent/claimant incurred all the medical expenses and approached the management who had said that dues will be cleared, but instead respondent/claimant was removed from the factory without any notice and without payment of any dues.
3. The appellant who was respondent before the Employees Compensation Commissioner below filed his written statement and pleaded that he had no concern with the M/s Anupam Packers because appellant was in fact carrying on business in the name of M/s Rishi Aluminium Industries. It was also pleaded that there was no defect in the machine. It was further pleaded that the appellant was acquitted on 27.07.2016 in the case titled State vs. Sanjay Gupta FIR No. 19/13, P.S. Bawana which was filed as per the complaint by Trade Union with respect to the accident in question.
4. The Employees Compensation Commissioner below has held that appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that he was making cardboard boxes. The Employees Compensation Commissioner also notices that the employee of the appellant Sh. Dhan Singh S/o Sh. Amit Chand, first made a statement Ex. RW1/N with respect to the accident but thereafter he turned hostile, but that reason is not enough to hold that compensation should not be awarded to the respondent/claimant under the claim petition inasmuch as appellant did not deny the issue of his ownership of M/s Anupam Packers in his replies dated 05.01.2013 and 03.11.2012 given to the notices of the respondent/claimant and the labour union. The Employees Compensation Commissioner also found as a matter of fact that the appellant was doing the business of manufacturing of cardboard boxes and which he has not denied in any of his statement. The Employees Compensation Commissioner has also found that as per the document Ex. RW1/B which is a letter of the CA to VATO, M/s Rishi Aluminum Industries had opened an additional place of business w.e.f. 02.04.2010 and additional items of business related to cardboard boxes. The Employees Compensation Commissioner has also held that no benefit can be given to the report given six months after the accident that the machine is working properly. It may be noted that Employees Compensation Commissioner also has arrived at a finding of fact that there is no dispute that the appellant is the owner of F-37, Sector-2, DSIIDC Bawana, New Delhi-110039 where the accident took place. The aforesaid conclusions have been arrived at by the Employees Compensation Commissioner in terms of para 13 to 17 of its judgment and these paras read as under:-
“
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
