This high court appeal concerns a claim for workmen's compensation. The appellant alleged an eye injury while working in the forest department in October 2006. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding there was no evidence the petitioner was a workman on the claim date or that the claimant received an industrial injury as alleged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
FAO No. 461 of 2009. Date of decision: May 05, 2017.
Shri Hitesh Kumar. …...Appellant.
Versus
Divisional Forest Officer & ors.
……Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the appellant : Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajinder Kumar Sharma, Dy. Advocate General.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
2
50,000/- was incurred upon on his treatment. He, as such, has claimed the compensation to the tune of 4,00,000/- besides the medical expenses to the tune of `50,000/-.3
January, 2007 till 29th March, 2007 and when the work came to an end and budget stands exhausted he was retrenched with the understanding that as and when work become available he will be engaged by following the seniority.
evidence produced by the parties on both sides and on completion of record and hearing the parties on both sides has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Workmen Compensation Act, hence not entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. The petition was not held to be maintainable, therefore, all the issues were decided against the petitioner and the petition dismissed. 6. Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, learned Counsel has urged that learned Commissioner below has failed to
4
appreciate the statement made by Shri Bhoop Ram and the documentary evidence Ext.R3 to Ext.R8 as well as list Ext.R9 and Ext.R10 in its right perspective. The testimony of RW1 Reta Ram, Forest Guard is also stated to be not appreciated in its right perspective. There was ample evidence to show that the petitioner-claimant had received injury on his eye while on duty and as such the findings that there was no evidence to show that he was a workman and received injury during the course of his employment are contrary to the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record.
5
one stone rubble hit his right eye while breaking stone. Though according to him, he was paid `6000-7000 for execution of this work. However, in the same breath expressed his inability to tell as to at what costs the said work was executed by him. Though according to him, the petitioner was deployed as Beldar by him. However, the petitioner has failed to produce any record such as attendance register etc. to prove this fact. Otherwise also, if the statement of PW2 in cross-examination is seen, the same is highly contradictory because he was not sure as to whether the money received by him from Forest department was his money or that of the labourer including the petitioner. Therefore, on the basis of his statement it cannot be said that the work of Check Dam was executed by him at Nehra Nal in October 2006 and that the petitioner received injury while working as a Beldar on the site on 20.10.2006.
6
no help to the petitioner because he has not stated that on 20.10.2006 the petitioner was working as labourer at Nehra Nal 10. Interestingly enough nothing is there in the petition that on 20.10.2006 the petitioner was working for Bhoop Ram Contractor. He rather has claimed that he was working as casual labourer engaged by the forest department. The case that he was working with Bhoop Ram contractor was introduced for the first time during the course of recording the evidence. The respondent department has produced the Muster Roll for the month of October 2006 which is Ext.R4. In this Muster Roll the name of the petitioner does not find mention.
7
engaged the petitioner as labourer and it is during the course of his employment he received injury on 20.10.2006. Therefore, first substantial question of law is accordingly answered in affirmative.
8
the petitioner on 20.10.2006 it is not known as to why he failed to get himself checked up in some hospital on the same day or retain some record with him that the injury was received by him during the course of his employment. Therefore, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence to show that the petitioner was working as labourer and rubble hit his right eye during the course of breaking stone it is difficult to believe that he was a workman within the meaning of the Act and received injury during the course of his employment. Substantial question of law at Serial No. 3 supra, therefore, also not arise in this appeal. 15. Learned Commissioner below has, therefore, appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective. The impugned award as such calls for no interference in this appeal. The present appeal being devoid of any merits, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
May 05, 2017, (vs)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents are principal employer when work was done by contract?
Whether the claimant is a workman entitled to compensation when name is missing from muster roll but admitted by department?
Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for injury to eye sustained in October 2006?
Hitesh Kumar
Divisional Forest Officer
Dharam Chand Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court