An employer-employee relationship is established for the purposes of the Employees' Compensation Act when a worker performs duties under the direct instruction and supervision of the employer, regardless of a terminated subcontractual arrangement with a third party.

O R D E R

08.01.2026

1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 seeking to set aside the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Labour Commissioner in Case No. CEC/SD/D/68/2021/1799. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation (South), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, allowed the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased/ Sh. Ram Lal Verma.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Commissioner erred in concluding that there exists an employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased, and further erred in holding that the injuries were sustained “out of” and “during the course of employment”. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to two Construction Agreements dated 11.06.2019 and 24.06.2019, which are already on record. Vide the first agreement, one Mrs. Pushpa Bamniyal appointed the present appellant i.e. M/s Paridhi Space Infra, as the Contractor to carry out construction work at property bearing Plot No. H-17/01, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017. The appellant, thereafter, entered into another contract dated 24.06.2019 with M/s City Construction through its proprietor Mr. Arvind Yadav for execution of the said work. He submits that the deceased was the employee of M/s City Construction and, thus, had no privity of contract with the present appellant. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions rendered in Gajanan Bhau Magar v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation reported as 1972 SCC OnLine Bom 6, Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr. reported as (2007) 11 SCC 668 and Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit @ Ranbir Kaur & Ors. reported as (2008) 12 SCC 212. The attention of the Court is also drawn to the screenshots of WhatsApp chats exchanged between proprietor of appellant and Mr. Arvind Yadav, wherein the latter was instructed to inform the appellant’s supervisor in advance before he intended to visit the site. Further attention is also drawn to the Peshbandi lodged on 06.05.2020, recorded vide DD No.23B, which was addressed by the appellant’s proprietor to the SHO, P.S. Malviya Nagar, apprehending harassment and foul play at the hands of Mr. Arvind Yadav and his associates. It is stated that the contract between the appellant and M/s City Construction was terminated, the work was put to halt on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the site remained incomplete. On the strength of aforementioned, it is urged that the deceased, being an employee of M/s City Construction, had no privity of contract with the appellant.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order and contended that appellant’s supervisor had independently approached the deceased/workman on 19.05.2020, pursuant to which the deceased had gone to the site. While working on the there at fourth floor, he unfortunately lost his balance and fell down to the basement. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. It was alleged that the incident took place as no security equipment/measures were provided by the construction company and the supervisor, which resulted in the death of Sh. Ravi Lal Verma.

4. I have heard the submissions and gone through the appeal paper book which contains the records of the case filed before the learned Commissioner.

5. The essential ingredients and tests which attract provisions