^, ^ ^<^^^-^'-"" '""' !M,.'W®^M!E^%£.^,HIIQ»:.COiyKE QiK. CHH^rHSGAKi. J miASFUR. MJL(QNo.3.U.^ OF 3.010 U^PEEM.'VAl.UaQtA'ERs.ai^^M APP.EAL UNDER SECTJON 30 QFWOSKMEN'SCQMPENSATIQNACT^ 1923. * APPELANT (NON- APPLICANT N0.4) ^^. \.^;\ ^<h •"" ^^ ^•^ '^ "^' ^.^' ^•' ....•^"^•^^- ^ ^. ^•^r-' ,A^ "'"" ...-^1 BESPQNDE^m (APPLICANTl latMHial hisuraiic^e Com^ai]^ LtdL Bhutaiii complax, G.E. Ra^d^ Pw^er Hteiise Bfoilai^ Througli: Its DivisiQnal Maxiagery DMsmLal-Ofiice^ BlTaha Ccmiplex, JRing Jtoad l^ Pri^darshani Nag^r^ Bila&piir (aa) VERSU& ^" Jalaluddin, S/0-Late-Tahir Mi^aEi ,aged-44 years, OccupatiQi3-skiIled iitter Contract labour, R/0-B.B.C- Coloziy, Khurasipar, Blulai, DistL-Durg (C.Q^ ^iSrON-APPUCANT ^ No:l) Classic Engineeras Company (Contractor), Address-7D./14, SectQr-5, Bhilai, Distt.-Durg (C.G4 ^( NON-APPUCANT /^No:2) ^- N.R. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. Siltra, Raipur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.946 of 2010 Appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Respondents Jalaluddin and others Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd November, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act') has been preferred by the insurance company challenging the award of Rs.52,294/- passed in favour ofthe claimant/respondent No.1. 3. The claimant preferred the claim petition on the pleadings inter alia that respondent No.2 Classic Engineers Company (Contractor), Bhilai (henceforth 'the contractor') was executing a contract of erection of Sponge Iron Plant with respondent No.3 N.R. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Siltara, Raipur (henceforth 'the company'). The claimant was engaged by the contractor and in course of employment, he received injuries on his left leg on 22-9-2005. He undergone treatment in the J.L.N. Hospital and suffered 20% ^ disability. At the time of accident, he was aged about 44 years and ^•' ' ^% ^' .^'":"'% / / ii^ss^ was receiving monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-. All the non-claimants denied the fact that the claimant was employed and also that he suffered any accident in the establishment of the contractor. 4. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (henceforth 'the Commissioner'), on appreciation of the evidence, has recorded a finding that the claimant was employed by the contractor in execution of work for the company. It has also been held that since it is not clear as to what amount of salary was paid by the contractor, the minimum wages fixed by the Labour Department of Government of Chhattisgarh has been made basis for holding that he was receiving monthly wages of Rs.2,526/-. After applying relevant factor, the total amount of compensation has been assessed at Rs.52,294/-. 5 . Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has argued that the contractor as well as the company have denied that the claimant was employed in the establishment, therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Commissioner has committed an illegality by holding that the claimant was employed and by further holding that he is entitled to compensation. 6. Record of the Commissioner is perused. The claimant has made the statement that he was employed with the contractor and received injuries on his left leg at about 10 A.M. on 22-9-2005. He has categorically stated that he was working as Fitter in the general -^hift and that after the accident he was taken to his house by the ^WSSiSlSKS y1^,-.,^^.,... ^ 's^. •^^y^iS^'"" supervisor. He has named one Sunil with whom he came to Bhilai and got admitted in Sector-9 Hospital on 26-9-2005. He remained admitted in the hospital for 20 days. The Commissioner has himself verified the injuries and the marks of stitches on the left leg of the claimant. 7. Since the claimant was employed in private capacity, production of letter of appointment cannot be expected. In fact, it was for the contractor to have submitted the documents maintained by him with regard to the attendance and duties assigned to each of the workers. From the insurance policy, it would appear that the contractor was executing a contract for erection of 100 tonnes per day Sponge Iron Plant, which is not a small job. Theclaimant could not have been in possession of any documentary evidence with regard to his private employment as a Fitter. The Commissioner has recorded the finding about the claimant's employment with the contractor on the basis of appreciation of evidence. The record also contains an intimation issued by the Dharsewa Police within whose jurisdiction the premises of N.R. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Siltara, Raipur is situated. The concerned police did not take any action on the report lodged by the claimant as he had suffered accident in course of employment. The concerned police appears to have closed the case after informing the claimant about non-cognizable offence. 8. After perusal of the record and considering the totalityof the evidence, this Court would find that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is based on appreciation of evidence. No substantial 1 ^, question of law arises for admitting the miscellaneous appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal //