IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.: 329 of 2008 Date of decision : 20.6.2011. Himachal Joint Venture …Appellant. Versus Budhi Singh Sharki and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. For the respondent No.4: Mr. Puneet Rajta vice Mr. K.D.Shreedhar, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. In this appeal the only question raised by the appellant is that deceased Amrita was not an employee of respondent No.3 Karma Lama, who admittedly was the contractor, employed by the appellant for construction of a portion of its project. 2. The contractor-respondent No.3 filed reply and denied the employment of Amrita but thereafter was proceeded against ex-parte and the case was contested only on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. A witness of the claimants alleged that the deceased was employed with Karma 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 Lama. Respondents No. 1 and 2 denied this fact. The learned Commissioner on the basis of the material on record before him came to the conclusion that the deceased must have been employed with Karma Lama. 3. No doubt, there is no direct evidence to show that the deceased was employed by respondent No.3. However, as held by the learned Commissioner the deceased and her husband were both Nepalese labourer and it is well known that in this class both husband and wife normally work as a labourer. A specific allegation had been made that Amrita was an employee of Karma Lama. Opportunity to lead evidence was given to the respondents but they chose not to lead any evidence. In case of a labourer, it would be very difficult for the claimant to prove the employment because by the very nature of work normally no appointment letters are issued. These appointments are casual in nature. The best evidence would be the muster roll/ records maintained by the contractor. There is no explanation why these records were not produced. Since the best evidence has been withheld by the employer, the Workmen’s Commissioner was justified in drawing the 3 inference in favour of the claimants. This is a pure finding of fact and no question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is rejected. No costs. 20th June, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.