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’ Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The present First Appeal (FAO) has been filed by the appellants assailing the judgment dated 30.04.2015 rendered by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rourkela in W.C. Case No. 09 of 2008.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the appellants are as follows:

i. The husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 and 3, namely Late Durga @ Durjya Sahu, was working on Truck No. OR-16-B-9179 belonging to Respondent No.1.

ii. While unloading marble slabs from the said vehicle, the truck tilted to one side, causing the slabs to slip, whereupon one of the slabs fell on him, pressing him underneath and resulting in his instantaneous death.

iii. Despite receipt of summons, Respondent No.1 neither entered appearance nor filed any written statement. Respondent No.2, the Insurance Company, filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application.

iv. The learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rourkela, vide judgment dated 30.04.2015, held that the appellants had failed to establish the employment of the deceased under Respondent No.1 and, consequently, that the deceased was not a “workman” within the meaning of the Act. The claim application was accordingly disposed of without grant of compensation.

v. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.04.2015 passed in W.C. Case No. 09 of 2008, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

i. The appellants contended that the judgment passed by the learned Commissioner is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law as well as the weight of evidence.

ii. The appellants submitted that although one of the witnesses, namely Dhaneswar Sahu, deposed before the Commissioner that the deceased was working as a helper in the truck bearing Registration No. OR-16-B-9179, the learned Commissioner nevertheless dismissed the case. It was asserted that such dismissal is illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside by this Court.

iii. The appellants contended that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that one Dhaneswar Sahu, who was working as a coolie in the said truck, was also an eye-witness to the occurrence. Despite such material evidence, the learned Commissioner passed a cryptic order, which is liable to be set aside by this Court.

iv. The appellants submitted that the learned Commissioner ought to have placed emphasis on the evidence of the witnesses examined before the Court. Instead, the Commissioner placed undue reliance on the police reports, which is contrary to the settled principles of law.

v. The appellants asserted that, as per the evidence of co-worker Dhaneswar Sahu, the deceased was a workman and had died in the course of employment. Despite this clear testimony, the learned Commissioner dismissed the case and passed a nil award, which is illegal and liable to be set aside by this Court.

III.SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

i. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the learned Commissioner held that P.W.1 (the claimant), during her cross-examination by Opposite Party No.2, failed to produce any document or cogent evidence to establish the employment of her deceased husband under Opposite Party No.1. It was found that,