IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.428 of 2005 Date of decision : October 5, 2010 H.P. State Forest Corporation …Appellant. Versus Shouju Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Debinder Ghosh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Present appeal by Forest Corporation of Himachal Pradesh is directed against the order dated 6th January, 2005 of Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, by which a sum of `8,720/- has been awarded, as compensation, for injury sustained by respondent Shouju Ram, in the course of his employment, with the finding that there was relationship of workman and employer between said Shouju Ram and the present appellant. 2. Admitted facts are that the appellant awarded work of timber floating and timber loading to respondent Balak Ram. Said Balak Ram engaged respondent Shouju, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… through a sub-contractor, named Bhag Singh, respondent No.2 herein. Respondent Shouju Ram sustained injury, while loading timber in a truck. He applied for award of compensation, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Present appellant, Bhag Singh and Balak Ram were impleaded as respondents. Bhag Singh and Balak Ram did not file any reply. Present appellant filed reply, in which it was not denied that respondent Shouju Ram had been employed, in connection with the work that had been awarded to Balak Ram, but it did deny that there was relationship of employer and workman between it and respondent Shouju Ram. 3. Learned Commissioner, after recording evidence, returned the finding that respondent Shouju Ram was a workman and the present appellant was the principal employer, within the meaning of Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Respondent Shouju Ram was held entitled to a sum of `8,720/-, on account of compensation for the injury sustained by him. So, order directing the appellant to pay the compensation money was passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel representing the respondents. 5. As already noticed, appellant did not deny that respondent Shouju Ram had been employed by Balak Ram, in connection with the work awarded to him. No doubt, an …3… admission to this effect had also not been made, specifically, but non-denial of this averment made in para-2 of the petition amounts to implied admission that respondent Shouju Ram had been engaged as workman by Balak Ram. That means respondent Shouju Ram was a workman under the appellant, within the meaning of Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In view of the abovestated position, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. October 5, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J