Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

FAO No.242 of 2024

(An appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act,

1923)

New India Assurance Company …. Appellant (s)

Limited, Cuttack

-versus-

Sushil Mahakud & Ors. …. Respondent (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Appellant (s) : Adam Ali Khan, Adv. For Respondent (s) : Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, Adv.

(for R-1 & 2)

Mr. Samar Pratap Mohanty, Adv.

(for R-3)

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-14.11.2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:-29.11.2025

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The instant First Appeal (FAO) has been instituted by the

Appellant, assailing the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum- Divisional Labour Commissioner, Dhenkanal in E.C. Case No. 07 of

2017.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 (a) The deceased, Raghab Mahakud, was employed as a skilled labourer, stone breaker and dresser under M/s Shree Gobindraj Stone Crusher. On 02.02.2017, while discharging his duties at the worksite, he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries, to which he later succumbed. In connection with the said incident, Motanga P.S. Case No. 26 of 2017 was registered on 03.02.2017, and a charge-sheet was subsequently submitted against the proprietor of the stone crusher unit.

(b)The employer had obtained Employee’s Compensation Policy No. 55040336160100000068 from the present appellant, valid from 12.09.2016 to 11.09.2017. The policy covered the risk of one unnamed semi-skilled worker with monthly wages of ₹7,500, and two unnamed unskilled labourers with monthly wages of ₹6,000 each.

(c) Upon receipt of notice, the proprietor of the stone crusher filed his written statement admitting the employment of the deceased as well as the fact of his death. He asserted that liability to pay compensation lay with the insurer as his establishment was covered under the aforesaid policy.

(d)The appellant–Insurance Company filed its written statement contesting the claim. It pleaded that only such persons who fall within the definition of “workman” under the Employees’ Compensation Act would be covered under the policy. It was further pleaded that under Section 3 of the Act, the employer

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 is primarily liable to pay compensation and may thereafter seek reimbursement from the insurer subject to the terms of the policy. The appellant contended that the applicants failed to establish employer–employee relationship by producing documents such as the muster roll, wage register or registration records. On these grounds, the appellant submitted that it was not a necessary party and that the application as against it was not maintainable.

(e) The learned Commissioner, upon consideration of the materials on record, directed the appellant to pay compensation of ₹8,67,640 within 30 days from the date of the order. It was further directed that in the event of default, penalty up to fifty percent and interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date the amount fell due would be imposed.

(f) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation- cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Dhenkanal in E.C. Case No. 07 of 2017, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

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

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 04-Dec-2025 18:50:39 i. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the learned Commissioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore liable to be set aside.

ii. It was submitted that although the Employees’ Compensation Insurance Policy was issued by the appellant–Ins