n>9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Miscellaneous Apoeal (C.l No.507 of 2006 Aopellant Non-ApDlicant Resoondents Claimants Resoondent Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Through Its General Manager/Factory Manager. Akaftara Cement Factory, P.0. Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) versus 1. Smt. Matti Bai Sahu. Wd/o Late Sri Kanwar Lal Sahu, aged about 41 years 2. Ravi Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Sri Kanwar Lal Sahu, aged about 17 years, Through His Guarcfian-Mtother Smt. ^4atti Bai Sahu 3. Hanuman Prasad, S/o Late Sri Kanwar Lal Sahu, aged about 14 years, Through His Guardian-Mother Smt MaltiBai Sahu All R/o Ward No.14, Labour Colony, Akattara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, BHaspur (CG) Aopeal under Section 30 of theWorkmen's Compensation Act Present: ShriP.Sam Koshy with Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for respondents No.1to3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 29UI day ofjuly, 2008) Heard on I.A.No. 1/2008, an applrcation for early hearing of the matter. I.A.No.1/2008 is allowed. The matter (staken-up on board. (2) Heard on I.A.No.3992/2006. an appdcatfon for taking document on record. Not opposed. I.A.No.3992/2006 is allowed. Document is taken on record. c- \A^ J (3) Heard onadmissfon. (4) No evidence was led by the appellant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to show that the deceased was an employee of the contractor and not of the appellant at the time of the accident. Shri P.8am Koshy, tearned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that on 25-05-2001 death of Kunwar Lal Sahu arose out of an accident white he was performing his duties within the premises of the appellant. 1 have also perused the document Ex.P-1C and Ex.P-2C. The tearned Commisstoner for Workmen's Compensation has also, while fastening liability on the appellant to pay compensation, given the right to the appellant to seek reimbursement from the contractor, if the terms of the agreement between the appellant and the contractor so permit. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of (aw is involved in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage ofadmisston. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopal