The court emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship in compensation claims.

JUDGMENT

First opposite party in ECC No.330 of 2017 of the Employees Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal), Thiruvananthapuram has filed this appeal. Son of the 1^st respondent and the brother of the 2^nd respondent – Sri.Sreekumar, while operating a hitachi machine in a quarry owned by the appellant, on 08.05.2013 at about 10.00 a.m. sustained serious injuries in an accident and succumbed to it. Before the Commissioner respondents 1 and 2 claimed an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation from the appellant and the 3^rd respondent – insurer. The Commissioner allowed the application and granted Rs.8,54,280/- as compensation with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till the deposit of the same. An amount of Rs.1,709/- was allowed as cost and Rs.5,000/- was allowed towards funeral expenses.

2. In the appeal, the main contention raised is that there was no evidence to prove the alleged employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased. According to the appellant inspite of total lack of evidence to prove the employer-employee relationship, the Commissioner proceeded to hold that the deceased was an employee of the appellant and the accident arose out of and in the course of employment under the appellant. The said aspect of total lack of evidence has been raised as a substantial question of law.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant; the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no evidence was adduced by respondents 1 and 2 before the Commissioner. Four documents were marked on the side of the applicants/respondents 1 and 2 without examining anyone. The Commissioner accepted the contentions of respondents 1 and 2 that there was employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased, solely on the basis of the FIR/FIS in Crime No.453 of 2013 of Nedumangad Police Station. The learned counsel submitted that the said document was not properly marked or proved before the Commissioner. The appellant had specifically denied the employer-employee relationship. Therefore, it was the burden of respondents 1 and 2 to prove the same. They miserably failed to adduce any evidence. Though there was total lack of evidence, the Commissioner held that there was employer- employee relationship and the accident arose out of and in the course of employment under the appellant. The learned counsel hence submitted that the decision rendered by the Commissioner is patently illegal. She further contended that whether there is evidence for the jurisdictional fact is a substantial question of law and the said issue arises for consideration in this appeal. She relied on a judgment of this Court in MFA (ECC)No.18 of 2024. She further submitted that at best the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to claim compensation for third party injury, for which the 3^rd respondent is liable to indemnify the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and therefore, it is liable to be rejected. He submitted that the Commissioner was right in relying on the FIR/FIS which are official documents, to arrive at a conclusion that there was employer - employee relationship. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence before the Commissioner and the finding of fact entered into by the Commissioner is not liable to be reversed in an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act . He also submitted that the substantial question of law projected by the appellant is only a question