The relationship of employer-employee can exist even if the direct employer is not a party if the worker was engaged for the benefit of the employer's business.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is the applicant before the Employees Compensation Commissioner. His application was dismissed by the Commissioner by the impugned Order. According to the applicant, he was employed as a headload worker by the 1^st opposite party in his lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-10-G-5652 on 15.12.2003 at about 5.30 A.M. and when the driver of the lorry suddenly took the vehicle to the reverse side in a rash and negligent manner, the applicant fell down from the lorry and suffered grievous injuries. The applicant filed the application claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, alleging loss of earning capacity.

2. The 1^st opposite party/owner of the lorry involved in the accident remained ex parte.

3. The 2^nd opposite party, which was the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, admitted the policy but contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the 1^st opposite party. The applicant did not sustain any injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The police have investigated the case and found that it was filed under mistake of fact. The accident occurred due to the falling of wooden piece while unloading from the lorry, and at the time of the accident, the driver of the lorry was standing somewhere outside, and he had not started or reversed the lorry as alleged by the applicant in his application. There is no accident happened as alleged in the application.

4. The Commissioner found that there is no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the 1^st opposite party, as the evidence available on record shows that the applicant is a registered headload worker attached to a pool in an area, and it does not show that the applicant was an attached worker of the 1^st opposite party; that the applicant has not discharged his burden to prove the employee-employer relationship between the applicant and the 1^st opposite party.

5. This Court formulated the following substantial question of law as per the Order dated 08.09.2025:

i. Whether the finding of the Commissioner that there is no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the 1^st respondent is sustainable, in view of the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company v. Abdul Razaque O.V. /b> [(2023) (7) KHC 226]

6. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. P.V.

Chandramohan and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, Smt. Reziya.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.A7 would reveal that the applicant was not a pool worker and he was only a registered headload worker having registration under the Headload Workers Act. Admittedly, the applicant was employed by the driver of the vehicle. When the driver employs the applicant, it can only be for and on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. Even though the 2^nd opposite party contended that the police referred the case as mistake of fact, no document in this regard was produced before the Commissioner. The evidence of AW1 was not effectively cross- examined with respect to the nature of the accident. The incident is admitted by the 2^nd opposite party in their written statement. The issue involved in this case is covered in favour of the applicant in the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company v. Abdul Razaque O.V. [2023 (7) KHC

226].

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contended that, as the applicant is a registered headload worker, he cannot be the worker of the 1^st opposite party. There is no evidence to show that the 1^st opposite party employed the applicant for unloading the goods from the