The court reaffirmed that both employer-employee relationship and functional disability assessment are vital for compensation determination under the Employee's Compensation Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU WEDNESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947 MFA (ECC) NO. 22 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2023 IN ECC NO.53 OF

2021 OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT/SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY IN THE CLAIM PETITION:

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED TC 83/C-2133, ANUGRAHA, M.G. ROAD, PAZHAVANGADI, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR EXECUTIVE LEGAL, ANN MARY FRANCIS, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O P.J.FRANCIS, BRANCH OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, PUKALAKKAT MADHURAMITTAM TOWER, EDAPPALLY PALACE ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 695001.

BY ADV SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & 1 s t OPPOSITE PARTY IN THE CLAIM PETITION:

1 SHAJAHAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O ALIYARU KUNJU, KOCHAYYATHU PADEETTATHIL, PV EAST, THODIYOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690523.

2 HASHIM S/O HAMEED KUNJU, EYINIKKATTU PADEETTATHIL, EDAKULANGARA, THODIYOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT THENGUVILA VEEDU, ELAMKULAM, MCPO, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695011.

BY ADV SMT.STEFFY V.J.

THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.02.2026, ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).80/2024, THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU WEDNESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947 MFA (ECC) NO. 80 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2023 IN ECC NO.53 OF 2021 OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

SHAJAHAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O ALIYARU KUNJU, KOCHAYYATHU PADEETTATHIL, PV EAST, THODIYOOR PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690523.

BY ADV SMT.STEFFY V.J.

RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1 HASHIM S/O HAMEED KUNJU, EYINIKKATTU PADEETTATHIL, EDAKULANGARA, THODIYOOR PO KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT THENGUVILA VEEDU, ELAMKULAM, MCPO, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 690523.

2 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.

TC 83/C-2133, ANUGRAHA, MG ROAD, R PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695023, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB – FOR R2 SMT.V.MANGALA VENKETARAMAN THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2026, ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).22/2024, THE COURT ON 18.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

S.MANU, J.

--------------------------------------------------

M.F.A.(ECC)Nos.22 & 80 of 2024 -------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2026

JUDGMENT

These appeals arise from the order dated 29.12.2023 in E.C.C.No.53/2021 on the file of the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. M.F.A.(ECC)No.22/2024 is filed by the second opposite party before the Commissioner, the insurer. Challenge is against granting of compensation on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between the respondents 1 and 2. In M.F.A.(ECC)No.80/2024 the applicant is seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Commissioner erred in not considering the case as one of permanent total disability for the purpose of awarding compensation.

2. In both cases substantial questions of law were not framed at the time of admission. Hence, on hearing the parties, the following substantial questions of law are framed for consideration in these appeals:-

M.F.A.(ECC)No.22/2024:-

Whether the Commissioner erred in entering into the finding on the basic jurisdictional fact of employer-employee relationship solely relying on the admission by the 2^nd respondent/first opposite party in the absence of any reliable evidence adduced by the 1^st respondent/the applicant.

M.F.A.(ECC)No.80/2024:-

Whether the Commissioner erred in law in not taking into account functional disability of the applicant as the criteria for granting compensation.

3. Parties will be mentioned in this judgment as they are arrayed in M.F.A.(ECC)No.22/2024.

4. The 1^st respondent approached the Employee's Compensation Commissioner alleging that he was employed by the 2^nd respondent as a paid worker for operation and maintenance