CM No.23620-CII-2009 and -1- FAO No.4827 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.23620-CII-2009 and FAO No.4827 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 05.03.2010 **** State of Haryana through Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana, Sector -6, Van Bhavan, Panchkula, Haryana and another . . . . Appellants VS. Triloki . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) There is a delay of 300 days in filing of the appeal. There is no case made out by appellant for the purpose of issuance of notice even in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act because on merits, counsel for the appellant could not make out a case. It is principally argued that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and respondent- workman. This argument has already been dealt with by the learned Commissioner in its impugned order wherein it has been held that “the applicant has also produced the attendance record as Exhibit A-7. From the attendance record it is evident that name of the applicant is written in the attendance record and he was in the employment of CM No.23620-CII-2009 and -2- FAO No.4827 of 2009 respondents. The respondent could not rebut the attendance record Exhibit A-7 also.” Moreover, counsel for the appellants has not framed any substantial question of law as envisaged in proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Apparently, there is no question of law involved in this appeal, hence the present appeal is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) March 05, 2010 JUDGE vivek