The burden of proof in cases of death caused by accident during the course of employment rests upon the applicant, and the employer has an obligation to maintain records of employees and pay them at least minimum wages.

Najmi Waziri, J.

The appellants have impugned an order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation granting compensation of an amount of Rs.4,86,024/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 14.11.2010 till the actual payment thereof, on account of death of Mr. Rakesh. The order also notes that the appellants would be liable for penalty under section 4-A of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 since they had not deposited the compensation amount within the statutory period.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of respondent No.1 Mr. Rakesh was employed as a liquor seller/salesman at the appellants' retail liquor shop on a monthly wage of Rs.10,000/-. He was 28 years old. During the course of his duties i.e. sale of liquor from the liquor vend, some prospective customers took offence of the fact that the liquor of their choice was not being made available to them. So, they threatened him with dire consequences and left the place. The other two persons i.e. Mr. Bimlesh son of Mr. Pyare Lal and Mr. Munesh son of Mr. Mahavir worked in the shop alongwith the deceased Rakesh. Mr. Bimlesh had filed a First Information Report (FIR) on 14.11.2010 at 8.30 p.m., to the effect that:

"...while they were selling liquor at Desi Liquor shop, two boys Guddu and Sanjeev, who live in Indra Colony Jhuggi and known to me before this, came to the liquor shop and asked the deceased Rakesh for Gulab Desi Liquor but Rakesh was selling Narangi Liquor that time and Gulab Liquor was inside the Godown and he refused to give Gulab Liquor and said he has no spare time yet due to crowd and asked them to buy Narangi Liquor, at this the two boys Guddu and Sanjeev said, they need Gulab Liquor and said come outside we see you and left from there. Yesterday night about 10:00 PM when both Desi & English Liquor shops got closed then we three started walking towards Metro Station P. Bagh. Me and Munesh were talking and walking ahead however, Rakesh was coming behind us. At 10:00 PM we were at road side before P. Bagh metro station and in front of Metro Pillar No.86, then those two boys Guddu and Sanjeev who were already standing there, started hitting Rakesh, we both reached there to save Rakesh then Sanjeev hit some Rod to my head and Guddu punched Munesh at below to his left eye. After getting injured my head got stunned and I run towards liquor shop by fear and seeing me running Munesh also run behind me, meanwhile Sanjeev and Guddu keep hitting Rakesh. After reaching at liquor shop I called my wife by the phone of Gunman of the liquorshop and told her about the instance and my wife told this to cousin brother of Rakesh namely Hariwansh @ Tiku. Who then reached to liquor shop by auto rickshaw and called No. 100 and meanwhile we were searching Rakesh but we could not find Rakesh and after your calling we reached Post office Indra Colony Jhuggi where Rakesh was lying dead having injury at his head where there was blood. Rakesh was killed by Guddu and Sanjeev and his dead body was kept hidden in forest. Legal action be taken against them. This is my true and correct statement."

3. The appellants deny the employment of deceased Rakesh at the shop, however, they are silent about the employment of Mr. Bimlesh and Mr. Munesh. However, if neither of them were employed, the appellants should have produced evidence to this effect, such as its Attendance Register of Employees and the Ledger of payments of salaries and wages. Since it is a liquor vend licensed shop by the Government of NCT of Delhi, therefore, it is all the more required to and expected to maintain records of its employees and to pay them at least minimum wages, as per the eponymous statute. No such evidence was produced by the appellants despite ample opportunities having been granted to them in the compensation proceedings.

4. The impugned order has noted that:-

"5. The matter was fixed for evidence by the parties. On behalf of applicants, the police record was filed