FAO No. 2357 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 2357 of 2009 Date of decision: August 10, 2009 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ........ Appellant Versus Smt. Sudarshan Devi and others .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The legal heirs of the workman, i.e. his widow and three minor children filed a claim petition against Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, herein, being the provider of security services all over India, at the particular time, the deceased workman was deployed as a Security guard at the Reliance Trans Connect Center at Rohtak. The aforesaid claim petition was allowed, vide order dated 13.03.2009 passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Bhiwani, with a direction to the appellant- Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.5,07,242/- as compensation amount within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. FAO No. 2357 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2009, solely on the ground that no evidence was led by the claimants in order to prove that there was any employer or employee relationship between the deceased workman and respondent Nos.5 and 6- GBS Security Services . Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that respondents No. 5 and 6 have not filed any reply to the claim petition, while the Reliance Trans Connect Center at Rohtak, where the workman had died, was not even made a party. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and having gone through the pleadings as well as the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, it is evident that a letter dated 02.06.2006, Ex A4, was issued by respondent Nos. 5 and 6- GBS Security Services, produced before the Commissioner, admitting therein that workman Rajinder Kumar, having enrollment No. 030-456 was their Security guard and was deployed at Reliance Trans Connect Centre at Rohtak. It was further submitted that he was covered under the Workmen Compensation Policy dated 11.11.2005. Thus, the respondents-GBS Security Services, admitted that workman-Rajinder Kumar was their employee and on their instructions, he was deployed at Reliance Trans Connect Centre at Rohtak as a Security Guard. This leaves no doubt that workman-Rajinder Kumar received injuries at his work place where he was deployed as Security Guard i.e. Reliance Trans Connect Center at Rohtak at the behest of the respondents-GBS Security Services. The duties of Security Guard at Reliance Trans Connect Center at Rohtak were assigned by the GBS Security Services. The fact that GBS Security Services did not come forward to contest the claim shows that the averments made by the claimants were correct and Ex. FAO No. 2357 of 2009 3 A-3 is self speaking and sufficient proof that the deceased was an employee of GBS Security services. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that workman Rajinder Kumar was murdered and hence he had not died during the course of his employment. Such an argument cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the workman died at the work place, i.e. Reliance Trans Connect Centre at Rohtak, where he was deployed to guard by respondents No. 5 and 6 being employed by them as Security Guard. Thus 'murder' of the workman, while performing his duties shall amount to death at the place of his employment. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 10, 2009 mohan