Sher Goods Transport Co. vs Tilak Dhari and Others

J.K. Mehra, J.

(1) I have heard Counsel for the parties. The appellant has made two points : (1) that the finding of existence of employer-employee relation is totally without any legal evidence and that (2) the Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, when admittedly the accident resulting in the injury had taken place in the State of Haryana. Mr. Raj Birbal appearing for the respondent states that as far as jurisdiction was concern edit was a consent order between the parties .The appellant contends that submission in the proceedings was without prejudice to the plea that the Commissioner had no territorial jurisdiction over the matter and that the Commissioner has wrongly usurped the jurisdiction,

(2) I have heard the Counsel for the parties at length and I find that both these objections appear to be correct. However, in view of the fact that the insurance had already joined the proceedings before the Commissioner and deposited the entire amount of compensation awarded, it will not be equitable to disturb the finding on this question and I would allow the order to remain undisturbed to that extent. However, on the question of employer-employee relation and award of penalty against the petitioner, I have perused the impugned judgment and the only reason whereon the Commissioner appears to have based his conclusion of the existence of employer-employee relations between the appellant and the workman is furnishing of the appellant''s address as his address on his driving license without any further information. There is no other evidence mentioned in the impugned order in this connection. It is not disputed that the truck was owned by one Baljit Singh and the injured person was driving the truck of Baljit Singh. There is also no evidence that such a truck had been given to the petitioner on some arrangement whereby it was plying under the supervision and control of the petitioner, nor is there any evidence produced or discussed in the order which would suggest that injured workman was otherwise working under the direct supervision and control of the appellant. In the absence of any such evidence, I feel that the Commissioner has committed a serious error in reaching such conclusion without any legal evidence to establish relationship of employer-employee. It may further be clarified that even today no appointment letter of any record of attendance has been produced before me .In the circumstances, I hold that the findings in this behalf are unsustainable and are set aside. Since the penalty can be charged only from the employer the consequence of the above decision is that the amount of penalty could not foisted on the appellant. It will, however, be open to the injured workman to pursue his rights in this connection against his own employer after proving his relationship as employee with whosoever he was employed with. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside to the extent stated above. No further order is called for. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.