IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, an employer is liable to compensate employees for work-related injuries or fatalities, and the existence of an employer-employee relationship must be adequately substantiated by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 (insurance company).

2. This Memo of Appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the judgment / award dated 16.12.2017, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, in W.C. Case No. 13 of 2014, whereby the claim case, filed by the appellants-claimants has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

3. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the appellant No. 1 happens to be the wife of deceased Naresh Pramanik, whereas the appellant No. 2 happens to be the minor daughter of the deceased Naresh Pramanik. He then submitted that the deceased Naresh Pramanik was permanent employee of Bablu Modak and was working as driver of the tractor of said Bablu Modak and on 21.08.2013, Naresh Pramanik was performing his duties and at about 12.00 A.M., when he was plying the tractor with sand loaded in the same and while he was crossing Shiv Sagar Drain, a flood tide has been occurred in Shiv Sagar Drain and the driver and tractor came in contact with the flood tide and drawn of and dead body of the deceased driver was recovered from Jamunia River at Giridih. He further submitted that for the death of the deceased Naresh Pramanik, U.D. Case No. 07 of 2013 has been registered and post-mortem was made and final report has been submitted, stating that the deceased died due to drowning. He further submitted that in this background, the case was filed before the learned Labour Court, Dhanbad under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants examined two witnesses namely Rekha Devi and Nimai Chandra Thakur. He submitted that the appellants have also proved the certified copy of the FIR, certified copy of the written report, certified copy of the final report, original copy of death certificate of the deceased Naresh Pramik. He submitted that on behalf of the respondent No. 1, the employer Bablu Modak and one Binay Chawla were examined. He further submitted that the alleged occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of the district of Dhanbad although the dead body was recovered from Jamuni River within the district of Giridih. He submitted that the witness Nimai Chandra Thakur was the eye witness to the said accident, as he was also working on the said tractor along with co-worker, who succeeded to save their lives. He then submitted that the deceased was also carrying the driving license and the same got damaged / misplaced at the time of accident. He further submitted that the deceased was aged about 35 years and was getting salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month apart from that daily wages of a sum of Rs. 50/- per day. He also submitted that no documentation was made for the said employment between the deceased and the employer namely Bablu Modak.

5. By way of referring the judgment / award passed by the learned Tribunal 16.12.2017, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly come to the finding that there was no employer employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the tractor. He submitted that one eye-witness was there on the said tractor and was also working along with the deceased, who has narrated the entire occurrence before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, in spite of that he has turned down. He submitted that on the ground that the deceased was not the employee of the owner and he has been pleased to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. He further submitted that the identical was the subject matter in the case of Fulmati Dharamdev Yadav & Anr. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2023 Live L