IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a written appointment letter does not negate the existence of an employer-employee relationship under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, as long as the relationship can be established through other evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“1. That the instant writ application has been directed against the Award dated 30.11.2021 passed by Dhruva Chandra Mishra, the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ranchi in W.C. Case No. 01/2010 (Annexure.3), whereby and whereunder the learned Presiding Officer has been pleased to hold the deceased as skilled person who was entitled to monthly wage of Rs.2979/- per month and ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.7,31,362/- as compensation to claimant namely Balki Devi by depositing the said amount within 60 days.

And/or

For issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may appear just and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner and in the interest of justice.”

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is perverse as the findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ranchi that there was employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the husband of the respondent (deceased) is based on no evidence. The learned counsel has submitted that no documentary evidence was produced to establish the relationship; there is neither any appointment letter nor any document to show any payment to the deceased person and, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the petitioner for the purposes of payment of compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned counsel has also submitted that the case was earlier dismissed for default by the learned court vide Order dated 08.03.2016 and thereafter there has been no order for restoration of the case but ultimately the case proceeded and the impugned order has been passed. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and both the parties led evidences and contested the matter resulting in passing of the impugned order.

2. The learned counsel has placed the impugned order and has submitted that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the adjudication relating to issue no.(iii).

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned award, this Court finds that the case of the applicant (respondent-wife of the deceased) in short has been recorded in paragraph no.3 of the impugned order. It was her case that her husband was employed by the present petitioner in their establishment, as Electrician-Helper, since last seven years before his death and on 29.04.2007 he received personal injury by the accident, arising out and in course of the employment, resulting in his death.

On 29.04.2007 at about 3:00 pm, the opposite party no.2 before the learned court, namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kanke Electric Sub-Division, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Kanke [hereinafter referred to as SDO, Kanke] called her husband for repairing electric wires on electric pole at Chaurigram, Kanke; assuming that the electric line was off, he climbed on the pole and started repairing at the top but suddenly electricity flowed in the wire resulting in electric burn and he fell down on the ground and died on the spot. The occurrence of the above accident was reported to Kanke Police Station on 30.04.2007.

It was the case of the wife of the deceased before the learned court that the monthly salary of her husband was Rs.2400/- and his age was about 42 years at the time of occurrence and demanded compensation from the writ petitioner but it was not paid and then she filed the case stating that her husband died in course of his employment under the writ petitioner as Electrician – Helper and prayed for compensation. The petitioner was the opposite party no.1 and SDO, Kanke was the opposite party no.2.

4. The impugned order reveals that the notices were issued to the opposite parties by the learned court and in response to