FAO No.552 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.552 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.5.2010 M/s Hyline Engineering Co. ..Appellant. Vs. Manoj Kumar and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(ORAL) This appeal is directed against order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for Circle 4, Gurgaon dated 11.12.2007 whereby respondent workman has been awarded a sum of Rs.2,71,369/- as compensation along with 12% interest to be paid within 30 days failing which the amount was ordered to be recovered along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner, the present appeal has been preferred by respondent No.1 M/s Hyline Engineering Company. In this appeal, notice of motion was issued on 7.2.2008 and till the next date of hearing, the amount deposited with the Commissioner was ordered not to be disbursed to the injured/claimant. Thereafter, interim order FAO No.552 of 2008 (O&M) -2- was continued from time to time. Ultimately, the matter was placed before Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 20.7.2009 but as per the order of the Mediator dated 12.1.2010, mediation proceedings failed and the case was remitted back to the High Court on 19.2.2010. Counsel for the appellant has offered a payment of Rs.1.75 lacs along with reinstatement. Counsel for the respondent had taken time to seek instructions whether amount of Rs.1.75 lacs is acceptable or not and the case was adjourned. Ultimately, on 26.2.2010, it was stated by the counsel for the respondent that it could be finally settled if the appellant pays Rs.2 lacs instead. Again the case was adjourned on the request of counsel for the appellant to seek instructions. On 4.5.2010 last opportunity was granted to the appellant to state as to whether he wanted to withdraw the appeal or wanted to pursue the same. Counsel for the appellant has chosen to address arguments as he stated at the bar that he could not contact his client. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order would show that respondent No.1 had denied the employment of the respondent whereas respondent No.2 had admitted his employment but still the compensation has been imposed upon the appellant, therefore, it is claimed that impugned order is patently illegal and is a result of misreading of evidence available on record. He relies upon Form I (Ex.R1) to contend that the appellant is an employee of Hyline Auto Industries and not of Hyline Engineering Company. In reply, counsel for the respondent has argued that in this case statement of Avdesh Kumar and Subhash was recorded which is part of Form I (Ex.R1) in which they have categorically stated that they are the co- workers of the appellant who suffered the injury while working in Hyline FAO No.552 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Engineering Company. He also refers to documents Ex.RW1/2 to Ex.RW1/9 which are stated to have been signed by Manoj Kumar (respondent No.1) in the process of receiving the material in factory of the appellant. The owner of the Company namely, Umesh Kumar who appeared as RW1, had admitted that documents Ex.RW1/2 to Ex.RW1/9 belong to appellant factory. From the circumstances available on record, it is apparent that Manoj Kumar was employee of the appellant and not of respondent No.2 who had admitted in his statement because of the reason that his establishment is not covered under Employees' State Insurance Act. In view of the above, I am convinced that the order passed by the Commissioner is in accordance with law. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 17.5.2010 Judge Meenu