1 FA No.753/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.753 of 2010 (i) M/s.S.K. Projects (I) Ltd. (ii)Mr.Ashok Khurana ... Appellants versus (i) Smt.Sangeeta P. Khandekar ... Respondent ... Mr. P.G. Lad for the appellants. Mr.V.J. Amberkar for respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 10th February 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17 February 2009 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and 4th Labour Court, Thane allowing the application filed by the respondent (widow of the deceased workmen) for compensation. 3. The appeal is filed under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Proviso to section 30 of the Workmen’s 2 FA No.753/10 Compensation Act says that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. It would therefore be necessary to see whether the present appeal involves any substantial question of law. 4. Mr.Lad, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no employer/employee relationship between the appellant and deceased inasmuch as deceased was not an employee of the appellant. There was no evidence to prove the employer/employee relationship and hence the finding recorded by the Commissioner is perverse and the perversity in the finding gives rise to a substantial question of law. 5. Mr.Lad submitted that the respondent no.1 had not produced any letter of appointment or other documentary evidence to show that her deceased husband was employed by the appellate company. He further submitted that even the salary slips were not produced to prove the existence of employer/employee relationship. Respondent no.1 examined herself on oath. She stated on oath that her husband was employed by the appellate company; he was paid salary in cash and no salary slips were issued. May be there was no documentary evidence to prove the employer/employee relationship. However, in my view, the oral testimony of the respondent was adequate to prove the existence of the relationship. After the death of her husband which had taken place by fall from a running railway while on duty, the respondent had intimated the death to the appellate company. There was no response from the appellant to the said intimation. After passing of a few days,the respondent had issued a notice to the appellant demanding compensation. There was no response to the said notice and no reply 3 FA No.753/10 was sent to the appellant. The Commissioner has taken into consideration the ordinary human conduct. If there was no employer/employee relationship, the appellant would have ordinarily responded to the notice that there was no employer/employee relationship and would have also responded to the first communication. The appellant also did not enter the witness box and adverse inference has rightly been drawn on that count. In the light of aforesaid evidence, the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner about the existence of employer employee relationship is a possible finding of fact and certainly cannot be said to be perverse. The appeal is dismissed summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)