Kambli 1 LPA47.08 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.47 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8665 OF 2007 ... Shri Ratansha Jivraj Patel ...Appellant v/s. Smt.Mayadevi Ramnakshtra Rajbhar and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, for Appellant. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 16th November,2010 P.C.: 1. By this Appeal the Appellant, who is the original Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8665 of 2007 takes exception to the order dated 29-11-2007. The facts that are relevant for deciding this Appeal are that the Kambli 2 LPA47.08 Respondents, who are legal representatives of the deceased Ramnakshtra, have filed an application before the Commissioner for compensation claiming that the deceased Ramnakshtra died while in the employment of the Appellant. The Appellant filed reply denying that Ramnakshtra was in his employment. On the basis of the pleadings, following three issues were framed by the Judge of the Labour Court: I S S U E S 1)Does the applicant prove that the deceased died in the course of and arising out of employment with the Opponent parties? 2)Does the applicant prove that the Opponent parties are liable to deposit the compensation amount claimed with penalty and interest? 3)What order. Kambli 3 LPA47.08 The Appellant made an application for framing an additional issue to the following effect, “Whether the Applicant proves that Ramnakshtra was in the employment of the Opponent?” That application was rejected by the Labour Court holding that by Issue No.1 burden is already cast on the Applicant to prove the existence of relationship of Master and servant between the Applicant-Ramnakshtra and Opponent. 2. That order was challenged by the Appellant by filing Writ Petition No.8665 of 2007. That writ petition has been rejected by the learned single Judge of this court by order dated 29-11-2007. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the Kambli 4 LPA47.08 Respondent. We find that the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the Appellant, because for proving Issue No.1, as framed by the Labour Court, the Applicant first will have to prove that there existed relationship of Master & Servant between deceased Ramnakshtra and the Appellant, and it is only after establishing this position that evidence will have to be led whether the death occurred during the course of employment. In our opinion, therefore, the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the application. A complaint is made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the learned single Judge in paragraph 5 of his order has made observations on the merits of the controversy. In our opinion, those observations are not relevant so far as the Labour Court is concerned, when it takes up Kambli 5 LPA47.08 the application for consideration. In our opinion, therefore, no interference is called for with the order of the Labour Court. However, it is clarified that while taking up the issues for consideration, the Labour Court shall decide the issue on the basis of the material produced before it, uninfluenced by any observations made by the learned single Judge. Appeal disposed of. (D.K.Deshmukh,J.) (N.D.Deshpande, J.)