In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.4866 of 2011 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:2.8.2011 District Forest Officer, Kurukeshetra and others .....Appellants v. Gurmukh Singh .....Respondent .... 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. Gaurav Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. CM No.18339-CII of 2011: This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 119 days in filing the appeal. It has been submitted in the application that this matter was referred to Legal Remembrancer & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Chandigarh for the opinion and filing of FAO and the delay has been caused due to movement of file in various offices. The application is also supported by an affidavit. The explanation F.A.O. No.4866 of 2011 (O&M) [2] furnished in the application appears to be plausible. Accordingly, the delay in filing the FAO stands condoned while allowing application. FAO No.4866 of 201 (O&M): It is case of workman Gurmukh Singh-petitioner (respondent herein) that he was employed as a daily wage labourer by Forest Guard/In- charge, Nursery, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra-respondent No.4 (appellant No.4 herein) on a salary of `2400/- per month and he was working with the appellants for the last about 12 years. On 19.3.2006 at about 10.00 a.m., while working under appellant No.4 he was plucking seeds from the Shisham tree. The seeds were needed for sowing the plants in the Nursery. Suddenly, he slipped and fell on ground and sustained multiple serious and grievous injuries including fracture of the backbone. He was shifted to K.D. Hospital, Ambala Cantt. for treatment. Om Parkash Forest Guard, Subhash son of Jasmer Singh and one other labourer were present at that time. He suffered these injuries during the course of employment of appellants. He spent `90,000/- on his treatment and stated that he became 100% disabled and was lying on the bed. The life of Gurmukh Singh and his family members had become miserable and they were facing starvation. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Circle Kurukshetra taking into account the employment, nature of work, injury, dependency of the family members and circumstances of the case awarded compensation to the tune of `2,83,766/- against which the present appeal has been preferred. While arguing before me, it has been submitted that there was F.A.O. No.4866 of 2011 (O&M) [3] nothing on record to show that Gurmukh Singh has been employed as a workman for the purpose of plucking Shisham seeds by the appellants. Accordingly, the relation of master and servant has been totally denied and it has been submitted that in the absence of any evidence to prove the employment of Gurmukh Singh the award was liable to be set aside. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) prescribes the liability of the employer if the personal injuries caused to the workman by the accident arising out and in course of the employment. Section 12(1) of the Act prescribes that the Principal shall be liable to pay any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him. Further Section 12(2) of the Act prescribes that where the Principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled, to be indemnified by the Contractor. RW-2 Om Parkash has been examined by the appellants who has stated that he was In-charge of the Nursery, Pehowa from 2004 to 30.9.2009. He has also admitted that on the date of incident i.e. on 19.3.2006 at the time of accident he was In-charge of that Nursery. From the evidence of this witness it could be easily inferred that labourers at Nursery, Pehowa were not engaged directly by the appellants, rather, the labourers including the respondent-Gurmukh Singh were engaged by the appellants through some Contractor whose name was never disclosed by the respondent. From this evidence, it is also apparent that the labourers including the respondent-Gurmukh Singh were required to work under the F.A.O. No.4866 of 2011 (O&M) [4] supervision and control of In-charge-Om Parkash (appellant No.4). In the cross-examination, this witness failed to show the list of workers who have been working on the relevant date or record regarding employment of any other person on that particular day. In the absence of any evidence to contrary, I do not find any fault with the award of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Circle Kurukshetra. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. August 2, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*