[117] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1007-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 14.02.2025 Unifab Industries, VPO Nathupur, Nathupur Road, Near Kundli, District Sonepat and others …Appellants versus Dimpi Singh and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Sunny Kadiyan, Advocate for the appellants.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Challenge is to order passed by the Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, Circle-1, Sonepat, allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Anil Singh in an accident, arising out of and during the course of employment on 30.06.2022. The appellants have impugned the findings recorded by the Commissioner regarding death of the deceased in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. It has been contended that since deceased died on account of slippery surface due to rain, the death could not be covered under Section 3 of the 1923 Act to attract liability of the employer.

[2] As per the facts of the case, the deceased who was 33 years of age was employed with the appellant(s) as Operator. On the fateful day, when the deceased reached factory premises to answer the call of duty, he slipped owing to heavy rains and died on the spot. Appellant-employer claims that deceased died outside the factory premises.

[3] Commissioner on the basis of the pleadings, framed following issues:-

“1. Whether the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation or not, if so then to what extent and from whom?

2. Whether the deceased had died out of and in course of employment with respondent or not?

3. Whether there was relationship of employee and employer in between deceased and respondent or not?

4. Relief. ”

[4] While returning finding on Issue Nos.1 to 4, Commissioner relied upon communication (Exhibit P-3) dated 02.07.2022 issued by the respondents to the claimants, informing that deceased-Anil Singh died on 30.06.2022 in the factory premises to hold that the deceased having died in the factory while answering the call of duty, the accident would fall within the ambit of Section 3 of 1923 Act.

[5] Counsel for the appellants is not in a position to dispute contents of Exhibit P-3. Apart from that, it is worth noticing that Ashok Kumar, Accountant/authorized representative of the appellant appeared as DW-1. In his examination-in-chief, he claimed that deceased-Anil Singh was not marked present. His cross was deferred, granting him time to produce attendance register on the next date. On the next date, he failed to bring the attendance and duty register.

2025.03.25 18:47 [6] In view thereof, this Court does not find that the Commissioner erred in drawing adverse inference against the employer to hold that deceased-Anil Singh died during the course of employment in the factory premises of the appellant.

[7] Pure finding of facts has been recorded by the Commissioner after properly appreciating the entire evidence threadbare. No substantial question of law much less question of law is involved as required under Section 30 of the 1923 Act. The appeal is ordered to be dismissed [8] All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed off.

(PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE

14.02.2025 ‘R. Sharma'