FAO NO. 743 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O No.743 of 2008 Date of Decision: 05-08-2009 The Contractor Kamaludin ....Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 31-12-2007 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Gurgaon, granting compensation of Rs.1,85,764/-. While challenging the said order, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the Commissioner, Gurgaon did not consider the objection of the present appellant that he had no concern with the claimant as well as the mines. It was further stated that Khori Hill is under the control of one Mr. Sethi and he is the only lessee of mines. He was the Sarpanch of the Village Khori Hills and he was neither the owner nor the Contractor of the labour. Thus, the respondent was not FAO NO. 743 OF 2008 2 his employee. As such, no compensation could have been passed against him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in as much as, the appellant filed his written statement but did not appear to contest the claim otherwise. He did not even cross-examine the respondent. No application to set aside the order to proceed ex-parte against him, was moved. There is no reason to for the respondent-workman to file claim against the respondent and not against Aman Sethi Mines Company, as stated by the appellant in his grounds of appeal, unless and until, he was in the employment of the appellant. The appellant did not even come forward to cross-examine the respondent and the evidence, so recorded, remained un-challenged. Even before this Court, no plea that he was proceeded against ex-parte has been taken. It was further brought to the notice that the amount so deposited, has since been withdrawn by the Workman. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 05.08.2009 JUDGE gurpreet