Compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act requires proving an employer-employee relationship, which was not established, leading to the dismissal of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The instant petition challenges the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum- Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.282-D of 2019, whereby the Commissioner directed the Appellant to deposit compensation of Rs.19,49,438/- for disbursement to the claimants.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:

(i) The instant petition challenges the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.282-D of 2019, whereby the Commissioner directed the petitioner to deposit compensation of Rs. 19,49,438/- for disbursement to the claimants.

(ii) The deceased allegedly died of electrocution on 26.08.2019 while working as a mason (Raja Mistry) engaged in construction of a Security Guard Post building at Government ITI, Jajpur. An Unnatural Death (UD) case was registered at JajpurSadar Police Station following the incident.

(iii) The claimants filed E.C. Case No. 282-D of 2019 before the Commissioner, who allowed the claim and fastened liability on the petitioner to pay compensation with penalty and interest.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

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

(i) The impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in proceedings, examine its witnesses, or cross-examine the claimants’ witnesses.

(ii) The Commissioner erred in relying solely on the oral evidence of PW-1 (daughter of deceased) to hold that the deceased was a workman engaged by the petitioner. The petitioner had categorically stated in its written statement that it had no engagement with the deceased at the relevant time.

(iii) The petitioner had already handed over all projects at Government ITI, Baruan to the Principal, Government ITI, well before the date of the alleged incident. The last project was handed over on 25.10.2017 (Skill Development Training Centre on 24.06.2016). After this, no work was undertaken by the petitioner at the said premises.

(iv) A report of the Assistant Engineer, Baruan (R&B) Section dated 06.12.2021 confirmed that the deceased was not engaged either departmentally or through any agency. The Commissioner wrongly discarded this evidence.

(v) Since the petitioner had no ongoing project at the site on 26.08.2019, it had no employer-employee relationship with the deceased, and hence no liability under Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

(vi) On the issue of quantum of wages, the Commissioner arbitrarily fixed the deceased’s income at Rs. 15,000/- per month solely on oral testimony, without any documentary proof, making the computation of compensation unsustainable.

(vii) The Commissioner erroneously relied on documents produced by Opposite Party/Respondent No.5 suggesting that the construction of Security Guard Post was under petitioner’s supervision, whereas in reality the petitioner had no role in that work.

(viii) Even assuming, without admitting, that the deceased was working under the petitioner, the Commissioner failed to apply statutory provisions and State Government wage notifications while calculating compensation, leading to a grossly inflated figure.

(ix) The Commissioner wrongly awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, amounting to Rs. 5,68,163/- in addition to compensation of Rs. 1