AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants are the opposite parties I to V in W.C.C.No.20/2000 before the Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Kannur. They are aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.10.2010 directing them to pay compensation for an amount of Rs.2,62,164/- with interest to the
applicant.
The claim advanced by the applicant before the Commissioner was that on 10.04.1999 at about 8 am, he fell down from a standing coconut tree in
the property jointly owned by the opposite parties and sustained personal injuries. The claimant is a close neighbour and a coconut climber. He claimed
to be a regular worker serving under the opposite parties and to be employed for coconut climbing and other manual works. It was stated that on
10.04.1999 also, he was engaged for coconut climbing and as a result of an accidental fall, he sustained injuries.
The appellants denied that there existed any employer-employee relationship between the parties. It was contended that the first opposite party,
who is alleged to have employed the applicant, is a poor carpenter owning a small bit of land and he had no need for employing the applicant as a
regular worker.
It is specifically contended that when the applicant came to first opposite party on the previous day of accident demanding 10 coconuts free of cost
with permission to pluck them from the tree, the request was not entertained. But on the next day, when the opposite parties were not in the house, the
applicant climbed the tree for plucking and had an accidental fall.
The Commissioner examined the rival contentions raised by parties, in the light of the oral evidence given by the witnesses on either side and came
to a conclusion that there existed employer-employee relationship and the applicant was a regular worker of the opposite parties. The witnesses
examined are close neighbours of the opposite parties and their evidence indicates that the applicant was employed as regular worker of the opposite
parties.
It has come out in evidence that first opposite party is not a poor man owning a small bit of land as contended. He himself admitted in his cross-
examination that he owned a workshop and the opposite parties have got extensive areas of land in their joint possession. The contention advanced by
the opposite parties was, in my view, rightly disbelieved.
The learned counsel for the first respondent/applicant submitted that no substantial question of law arises in this matter and the appeal is only liable
to be dismissed.
On looking at the materials on record, I also find that no substantial question of law arises. There is clear evidence on record to show that
employer-employee relationship existed between parties and the applicant was serving under the opposite parties as a permanent and regular worker.
There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Commissioner.
In the result, appeal fails and it is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.