FAO No. 4493 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 4493 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.12.2010 Amar Kaur and others ..... Appellants vs Hardeep Singh others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mrs. G. K. Turka, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Additional Labour Commissioner, Patiala (for short, “the Commissioner”), whereby he dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants. Brief facts of the case as have been extracted from the order dated 18.2.2008 are that Bakhshish Singh, aged 35 years, was employed as foreman with Surjit Singh Sarpanch, respondent no. 3, on his Combine No. PCP 4958. The death of Bakshshish Singh took place on 1.9.1996 when he was coming from duty on Motor Cycle No. PB-11 E 5998 owned by Naib Singh. On the same day, DDR No. 27 was got recorded in Police Station Sadar, Rajpura and the post mortem was conducted at AP Jain Hospital, Rajpura. The LRs of deceased filed claim petition with the Commissioner, which was rejected vide order dated 18.2.2008, against which the present appeal is preferred by them in this court. Along with the appeal, the applications for condonation of delay of 383 days in refiling and 278 days in filing thereof have also been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants did not have sufficient funds to meet the expenses of the appeal in this court, it is due to this reason that delay has occurred in filing the appeal before this court. The submission was that the technicalities should not come in the way of grant of justice. It was also submitted that the evidence led by the claimants was not considered by the learned Commissioner, who wrongly rejected their claim. After considering the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the paper-book, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The appellants were to prove the relationship of employee and employer between deceased Bakhshish Singh and Surjit Singh, but they failed to prove this FAO No. 4493 of 2010 -2- fact which is main basis for rejection of their claim. To prove this fact, the claimants/appellants have not led any independent evidence. They only produced themselves and also one AW2 Hazara Singh, who is also in their relation. AW2 even did not know where the accident took place or where the deceased was working. In his testimony, AW3 Sewa Singh, who is son of deceased, stated the same facts as deposed by his mother. He admitted that the facts regarding death of his father and his employment as were told by his mother. The claimants failed to produce on record any cogent evidence which could show the employment of the deceased with Surjit Singh on the combine as Foreman. Even the reasons stated for seeking condonation of delay of 383 in refiling and 278 days in filing are also not sufficient. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal as well as the applications for delay in filing/ refiling the appeal are also dismissed. 6.12.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge