In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.1396 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:12.9.2011 M/s Sthanishwar Handmade Paper PCIS Ltd. .....Appellant v. The New India Assurance Co. and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is an appeal by M/s Sthanishwar Handmade Paper PCIS Ltd. (employer) against the award dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner') vide which compensation to the tune of `1,18,442/- along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the order till date of actual realization of the amount has been awarded. F.A.O. No.1396 of 2010 [2] As per facts of this case, claimant-Gurmukh Singh (respondent No.2 herein) was working as Machine Man on monthly wages of `3,600/- with respondent No.1-company (appellant herein). On 31.7.2008 at about 10.00 a.m., when he was working on paper cutting machine on the directions of appellant, suddenly machine failed and the cutter fell on his right hand and his four fingers were amputated. The workman was taken to Anand Hospital, Kurukshetra where he remained admitted from 31.7.2008 to 6.8.2008 and expenses on his treatment were born by the appellant. As the workman became disabled, he filed claim petition before the Commissioner and accordingly, an award of `1,18,442/- has been passed in his favour. However, the New India Assurance Co. (hereinafter referred to as `the Insurance Company') (respondent No.1 herein) was absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount and the appellant-M/s Sthanishwar Handmade Paper PCIS Ltd. was only held liable to pay this amount. Aggrieved from this order of the Commissioner, the appellant-company has come in appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that finding recorded by the Commissioner that Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.1 was not liable to pay the award amount and thus only the appellant was required to pay the entire amount was against the insurance policy and the provisions contained in law. On the other hand, while arguing on behalf of the Insurance Company, Mr. L.M. Suri has argued with vehemence that there was no substantial question of law involved in this case and that the worker was a F.A.O. No.1396 of 2010 [3] Machine Man, who was not at all insured in the insurance policy, as such the decision of the Commissioner was a valid and legal and the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. The basic question or substantial question of law in this case would be whether labourer/workman can be debarred from the cover of Insurance Policy if operating on paper cutting machine for which no technical skill or expertise is required or he has been named as Machine Man? From the facts of this case, it is apparent that the appellant- company was duly insured with the respondent No.1. Copy of the insurance policy has been placed on record. Respondent No.2 was a labourer and was operating the paper cutting machine at the time of accident. Learned Commissioner concluded that respondent No.2 was not a workman/labourer as he was working on machine. It has been further held that the worker being Machine Man was not covered under the insurance policy, as such the compensation was liable to be paid by the appellant i.e. employer of the workman. Annexure-A.2 is copy of the insurance policy according to which the employees whose monthly wages were less than `4,000/- were covered under this policy. Two foreman, and 16 labourers were insured by respondent-Insurance Company in case of any untoward incident. The appellant has been held liable to pay the compensation amount simply for the reason that the workman was named as Machine Man and as such was not covered under this insurance policy. I am of the considered opinion that a worker working on paper cutting machine cannot be designated as Machine Man or a Mechanic. The Commissioner seems to have fallen in F.A.O. No.1396 of 2010 [4] error while holding that the workman in question was not covered under the insurance policy. Once a workman is getting salary of less than `4,000/- per month and is duly covered under the insurance policy being workman, the liability cannot be shifted by saying that the workman having been designated as Machine Man was not covered under the policy and as such the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. I am of the opinion that the reasoning recorded by the Commissioner while shifting the liability on the employer is perverse and liable to be set aside. Since 16 workmen were duly insured with the Insurance Company, it is liable to pay the compensation amount to the workman. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the compensation amount has been deposited and the same has been disbursed to the claimant. The decision of the Commissioner is set aside. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Commissioner. Resultantly, the present FAO stands allowed. September 12, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*