IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Asst. General Manager, M/s. Kalinga Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Haramani Behera & Ors. – Respondents
FAO No. 440 of 2025
Decided On : 12-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the employment and accident. (Para 3) |
| 2. appellants argue against liability. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. commissioner's findings on employment status and compensation. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. procedural limits of appeal jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12 , 20) |
| 5. legal conclusions regarding compensation allocation. (Para 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. conclusion affirming lower court's decisions. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The present First Appeal (FAO) has been instituted by the Appellants assailing the judgment dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No. 341 of 2023.
2. The Appellants also challenge the subsequent order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner under Section 12(2) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (OMC), Opposite Party No. 3 before the learned Commissioner, is the lessee operating the Gandhamardan Iron Ore Mines situated at Suakati village in the district of Keonjhar, Odisha. The present Appellants, M/s. Kalinga Commercial Corporation Ltd., were engaged by OMC for carrying out raising operations in the said mines. For the purpose of execution of such work, the Appellants engaged certain workmen to undertake mineral-raising activities within the premises of the OMC mine.
(b) The deceased, Sarbeswar Behera, was working as an operator under M/s. Kalinga Commercial Corporation Ltd. and had joined service on 28.03.2018.
(c) On 03.10.2022, the deceased was assigned night-shift duty from 10:00 p.m. to 06:00 a.m. On the same day, at about 3:30 p.m., while riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No. OD-05-BC-2014 along with one Reena Mahakuda, he met with an accident involving an unknown truck near Jamudiha in the district of Keonjhar, Odisha.
(d) Upon receipt of information regarding the accident from one Narayan Chandra Sahu, the police proceeded to the spot and arranged for shifting of both injured persons to Keonjhar Hospital by ambulance, where they were declared dead by the attending doctor. On 04.10.2022 at about 09:25 hours, a written report was lodged before the I.I.C., Keonjhar Sadar Police Station, on the basis of which FIR No. 0400 was registered. Subsequently, on 10.11.2022, the police submitted the final report, registered as P.S. F.R. No. 1.
(e) In the year 2023, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being the parents of the deceased, filed an application seeking compensation in Form ‘G’ before the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum- Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, which was registered as E.C. Case No. 341 of 2023.
(f) Upon receipt of notice, the Appellants filed their written statement denying the allegations and claims made in the application. The Odisha Mining Corporation Limited, Respondent No. 3, also filed its written statement.
(g) Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants, including Respondent No. 2, the father of the deceased. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the Appellants.
(h) By judgment dated 04.07.2025, the learned Commissioner allowed E.C. Case No. 341 of 2023, held the opposite parties liable, and directed the General Manager, Odisha Mining Corporation Limited, to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,59,850/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 03.10.2022 till realisation, within a period of 30 days. It was further directed that failure to deposit the amount would attract penalty at the rate of 50% in terms of Section 4A of the Act.
(i) On 18.07.2025, Respondent No. 3 filed a modification application seeking a direction permitting it, as principal employer, to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the contractor, namely the present Appellants.
(j) By order dated 03.09.2025, the learned Commissioner rejected the modification application but granted liberty to Resp
Employer liability under the Employees' Compensation Act arises immediately upon personal injury occurring in the course of employment, with appellate jurisdiction limited to substantial questions of....
The burden to establish an employer-employee relationship lies on the claimant, and failure to provide corroborative evidence results in dismissal of compensation claims under the Employees’ Compensa....
The insurer is liable for compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act but not liable for penalty due to employer's personal fault.
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a social welfare legislation and it must be given a beneficial construction – Matters thereunder are to be adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen....
The appellate court confirmed that findings based on factual determinations by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act are not subject to appeal unless substantial legal questions aris....
Compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act requires proving an employer-employee relationship, which was not established, leading to the dismissal of the claim.
The establishment of an employer-employee relationship is essential for claiming compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, and the liability for interest on compensation lies with the emplo....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.