IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 Date of decision : 10.01.2025 M/s. Devanshu Industries and another ...... Appellants versus Narain Sukla ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. D.D. Kaushik, Advocate and Mr. Devindra Datt Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

CM-15361-CII-2014 This is an application for condoning the delay of 238 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 238 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

Main case

1. Employer is in appeal aggrieved of order dated 20.09.2013 passed by Commissioner under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, whereby application filed by the claimant seeking compensation under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act stands allowed awarding him compensation of Rs.2,09,884/-.

2. Claimant approached Commissioner claiming that he was employed as Operator on a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. On 19.01.2011, while he was on duty, he met with an accident arising out of and during course of employment, wherein he received injuries leading to amputation of 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th finger. He thus, sought compensation from the employer.

3. Claim petition was contested by the respondents denying the claim of the applicant. Commissioner framed following issues:-

“1. Whether the applicant was in employment with respondent No.1 & 2? Relationship of employee and employer?

2. Whether the accident occurred during course of the employment with respondent No.1?

3. Whether this court has jurisdiction or not?

4. Whether the applicant is entitled to the compensation, as claimed?

5. Relief.”

4. While answering issue No.1 with respect to relationship of employee-employer between the parties, Commissioner relied upon statement of AW-1 to AW-4, documents Ex.PW-1/1 to PW-1/6, PW- 4/A to PW-4/B and discharge slip PW-1/1 that shows that the applicant met with an accident on 19.01.2011 while he was on duty and was operating press machine and answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimant. Keeping in view the age and the salary, Commissioner allowed the claimant a compensation of Rs.2,09,884/- alongwith statutory interest as contemplated under Section 4-A of the Employee’s Compensation Act.

5. Counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned order passed by the Commissioner has raised serious dispute with respect to employer-employee relationship and submits that there is no evidence with respect to prove the same, as neither salary certificate nor employment contract was produced on record.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-claimant submits that from the discharge slip, it is evident that the claimant suffered injuries while operating machine. No evidence was led by the employer to dispute the claim of the claimant with respect to employment. Whole of the evidence being in possession of the employer, Commissioner rightly held that the evidence brought by the claimant has gone unrebutted.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

8. So far as injury suffered by the claimant while on duty is concerned, the same is evident from the discharge slip PW-1/1. So far as the non-production of salary certificate or contract of employment is concerned, the same is not the requirement of the Act. Section 2(dd) of

1923 Act defines "employee” and the same reads as under:-

“(dd) "employee" means a person, who is--

(i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II; or (ii) (a) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship, (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft, (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or