JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'EC Act'), the appellants/claimants have assailed order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation (North-East District), Delhi in Case No. CEC-D/NE/07/2013/674, whereby the claim petition filed by them was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the claimants had filed an application under Section 22 of the EC Act seeking death compensation in respect of one Tofik/deceased, wherein it was stated that between 12:00-01:00 A.M. on 05.06.2013, he was driving a three-wheeler bearing No.UP-14-DT-1272, when the same was hit by an unknown vehicle. The accident resulted in serious injuries to Tofik. He was taken to GTB Hospital, where he was declared dead. The post-mortem was conducted and the case registered in P.S. Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. vide FIR No.667/2013 under Sections 279/304-A IPC. It was claimed that Tofiq (aged about 24 years at the time) was working as a driver with respondent No.1 @ Rs.10,000/- per month and had died during the course of employment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Commissioner, in spite of the admission by respondent No.1/employer that the deceased was employed with him, rejected the claim petition in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. He submits that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased was an ‘employee’ of respondent No.1.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Suffice it to note, respondent No.1 has been served but there has been no appearance on his behalf.

6. A perusal of the case records would show that initially, the claim petition in the present case was dismissed by the concerned Commissioner vide order dated 22.01.2016/25.01.2016, ostensibly on the ground that the three-wheeler in question was taken by the deceased on rent and he was not an ‘employee’ of respondent No.1.

7. The aforesaid order was assailed before this Court vide FAO 120/2016. On 10.08.2016, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court noted that respondent No.1 had admitted in his written statement that the deceased was working as a driver on his three-wheeler scooter and earning Rs.8,500/- per month. Considering the dismissal of the claim petition to be unwarranted, the matter was remanded back to the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner and respondent No.2 was permitted to take permissible defences.

8. A plain reading of the impugned order would show that after the matter was remanded back, respondent No.1 remained unrepresented. Furthermore, respondent No.2 failed to lead any evidence despite multiple opportunities being given and imposition of costs. On the basis of the material on record and contrary to the import of the order passed by this Court, the claim petition of the appellants again came to be dismissed on the ground that the deceased was not an ‘employee’ of respondent No.1 at the relevant time. Notably, the claim petition was also dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

9. There is no gainsaying that labour statutes such as the EC Act constitute ‘beneficial legislation for the welfare of employees and should be liberally construed in their favour. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Jaya Biswal and Others v. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Another reported as (2016) 11 SCC 201 has opined as under:-

“20. The EC Act is a welfare legislation enacted to secure compensation to the poor workmen who suffer from injuries at their place of work. This becomes clear from a perusal of the preamble of the Act which reads as under:

“An Act to provide for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident.”

This further becomes clear from a perusal of the Stateme