FAO No.483 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.483 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: January 20, 2011. Sukhbir. .. Appellant VERSUS Rashid and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) CM No.1573-CII of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Misc. application is allowed. . . . 1 FAO No.483 of 2011 (O&M) FAO No.483 of 2011 Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the relationship of the deceased with the appellant being employee of the appellant does not stand proved on the record and that even if it is presumed that the deceased was Helper with the JCB Machine owned by the appellant, he had willfully disobeyed the safety measures which were required to be adopted by him while sitting on the front portion of the JCB Machine at the time of its working. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and with his assistance gone through the reply filed by the appellant to the claim petition of the claimant-respondent. The appellant has not specifically denied that the deceased Sukhbir was working as Helper on a monthly salary of Rs.3500/- with the appellant on JCB but it has been vaguely pleaded that the claimant should be asked to prove the averments in the claim petition by cogent evidence. In view of the vague pleadings of the appellant and the statement of the claimant-father of deceased made in the Court, I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the Commissioner regarding relationship of the deceased with the appellant. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was negligent in the performance of his duties is concerned, I have gone through the statement of the claimant made in the Court. In the cross-examination, no such suggestion has been put to the claimant that his son during the . . . 2 FAO No.483 of 2011 (O&M) course of employment had acted negligently contrary to any instructions of the employer warranting the disability to claim compensation in view of Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. After hearing the counsel for the appellant, at length, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the first appeal as per the proviso of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, warranting interference in the order passed by the Commissioner. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 20, 2011. rka . . . 3