The limited scope of interference in an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act and the requirement for substantial questions of law to be involved.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 45985/2016 (delay)

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 151 CPC, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 5 days in re-filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 5 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 578/2016 and CM APPL. 45983/2016 (stay)

4. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the `EC Act'), the appellant (alleged employer) has assailed order dated 12.09.2016/14.09.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation in Case No.WCA/CD/7/12/1839, vide which the claim application filed by the respondent/claimant seeking injury compensation was allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner erred in allowing the claim of the respondent, as though the respondent had averred himself to be an employee of the appellant, the claim was denied by the appellant and the respondent failed to place on record any document in support of his averment.

6. On a perusal of the appeal paper book as well as the Commissioner's Records, it is discernible that in the claim application, the respondent had claimed himself to be working with the appellant as Tablet Machine Man for making drug tablets. It was averred that he was employed in the year 2005 and besides drawing wages @ Rs.5,000/- per month, he was earning approximately Rs.4,000/- per month as overtime. On 05.05.2007, in the absence of any helper, the respondent was forced by the appellant to operate the machine, when a rack of 55-60 kgs fell on his left leg causing grievous injuries. The appellant's management rushed him to Chauhan Hospital, Kath Mandi, near Old Court Sonipat, Haryana. On 06.07.2007, the respondent was forcibly declared medically fit by a doctor of the appellant. However, later, he was treated at different hospitals. When he raised a claim for compensation before the appellant's management, the same was denied. Reportedly, the appellant was earlier known as M/s. Unisule Pharmaceutical Pvt. and only in the year 2009, its name was changed to the present one. The respondent specifically averred that the appellant's management did not provide any ID Card, ESIC, Gratuity, Bonus, etc.

7. Pertinently, besides placing on record his medical documents alongwith the claim application, the respondent had also filed photographs showing him to be working on tablet making machine No.16, station No.27, where he was employed as machine man. The photographs were statedly taken by his co-worker from mobile phone as the mobile phone was allowed inside the appellant's premises. The respondent also placed on record certificate of operation of the machine duly signed by the Production Manager & other officials of the appellant as well as flow sheet of the production on various dates. The documents were put to the appellant's witness who simply denied the same without producing any document to the contrary.

8. Learned Commissioner, after considering the aforesaid, passed the impugned order against the appellant, directing deposit of compensation amount of Rs.79,561/- alongwith simple interest @12% per annum from the filing of the claim application i.e., 20.03.2012 till realization. Additionally, Rs.10,000/- were allowed in favour of the respondent as medical expenses.

9. Insofar as the appellant has raised an issue that the respondent was not its employee, this Court deems it expedient to outline the scope of appeal filed under Section 30 of the EC Act, as delineated in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514. In the captioned case, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the scope of interference in an appeal filed under Section 30 of EC Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of facts proved either way, are not to be