IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Order No. 18 of 2002 M/s Singhal Agro Mills … Appellant Vs Harish Kumar Verma … Respondent Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant None has appeared on behalf of the respondent Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, 1923 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2001 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaun Range, Haldwani, District Nainital in W.C.A. Case No. 56 of 1999 whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 44,870/- (along with interest) against the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant / respondent Harish Kumar Verma was doing the welding work in M/s Singhal Agro Mills on 16.09.1998, suddenly the warm fire ball falls on his left leg thumb due to which his thumb was completely burnt. After sometime his thumb started decaying and doctor removed his thumb from the root. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner for Rs. 69,170/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. The learned Workmen Commissioner issued notice to the respondent/appellant who has filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. It has further alleged that the claimant did not sustain injury during the course of the employment. The respondent also alleged that the amount of compensation has been demanded on wrong facts. 2 4. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record awarded a sum of Rs. 32,280/- along with interest of Rs. 12,390/- in total Rs. 44,870/- in favour of the claimant vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2001. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the amputation of thumb of the claimant was not the result of the injury sustained by him. It has also contended that there is no documentary evidence, which may show that the amputation of the thumb of leg was due to injury received by him during the course of employment. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the claim of the opposite party M/s Singhal Agro Mills was that the claimant was working in the firm under the agreement made on 07.06.1998 between the parties and he was not regular employee. However, the case of the claimant/respondent is that he was working in the firm of the appellant as a welder and during the course of the work of welding his left leg’s thumb was damaged due to fireballs and ultimately the thumb was cut from its root by operation. To prove his case, the claimant produced himself before the learned Commissioner and deposed that he was in the regular employment of the appellant. He also stated about the manner in which the accident had taken place. On the other hand the appellant has not filed the so called agreement arrived at between the 3 parties pertaining to contractual employment. Had there been any agreement, the same should have been filed before the trial court. The Manager or some other employee of the firm has not come forward to depose the fact that there has been any agreement. The firm also did not file the pay register, cash book, attendance register etc. of the firm in order to establish that the claimant was not working in the firm on regular basis, as the opposite party appellant has accepted that there were 5-7 employees in the firm. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner has rightly held that the claimant was in the regular employment of the appellant and he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,600/-. The age of the claimant has been found to be 37 years on the basis of the ration card as well as the oral evidence of the claimant and the same has not been contriverted by the opposite party. The learned Commissioner has rightly computed the compensation on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as going through the entire material available before me, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The learned Commissioner after considering the entire material available on record decided the claim petition in favour of the claimant. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner. The appeal liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.04.2008 ASWAL