IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 369 of 2011. Date of Decision : 15..11.2011 _________________________________________________________ TRIG Detective Pvt. Ltd. ….Appellant. Versus Smt. Sarita Devi & Others …Respondents. _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. _____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan, J. (oral) This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, whereby the petitioner herein challenges the award passed by the learned Commissioner on a number of grounds. 2. The respondents/claimants had approached the learned Commissioner under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act on the allegations that Sunil Kumar was a workman having been employed by the respondent (appellant herein), who died on 12.5.2008 at about 5 A.M. during the course of his employment. He sustained an injury resulting in his death and he was employed as Security Guard and was directed to report his duty at the main gate from 4 A.M. to 8 A.M. The 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 petitioners (respondents herein) plead that on that day in the morning while he was proceeding to the duty he slipped and the resultant injuries caused his death. 3. Petition was contested by the respondent (appellant herein) on a number of grounds. Six issues were settled by the learned Court below, one of them was whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning and scope of Workmen’s Compensation Act and other three issues related to the maintainability of the petition and privity of contract between the deceased and the respondents. These settled issues were tried by the learned Court below. On the first issue, Court holds that this fact has not been disputed by the parties and a consensual order has been obtained which facts are also otherwise established from the pleadings. This issue was decided against the appellant herein. Second issue as to whether the death of the deceased Sunil Kumar occurred during the course of his employment, was decided by the learned Court below holding that evidence on record which inter alia include photographs of the deceased Ex.PW1/C and report rojnamcha Ex.PW3/1/A filed with the police shows that the deceased was getting ready to report for his duty. In fact , photographs show that he was in uniform. Evidence was that he went towards the toilet where he slipped and fell. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not on duty. However, the fact he was on the way to perform his duty, but unable to do so, cannot be treated as outside the ambit of “during the course of employment”. On the third issue as to whether the petition is not maintainable agreement Ex. RW1/A was relied upon. According to the learned Court below by this agreement respondent/appellant herein is providing service of security guard. In 3 these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the respondent/appellant herein. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition was allowed by the learned Court below. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges number of questions for consideration of this Court. First question raised is omnibus in nature as it calls upon this Court to re-read the entire evidence and the pleadings on record. This exercise cannot be undertaken because the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to adjudicate substantial question of law and these proceedings can not be used for re-arguing the entire petition. Even otherwise the decision arrived at by the learned Court below being based on sound appreciation of evidence, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for determination of this Court. Second question relates to the statement of PW1 Dr. D.S. Datal. What is urged before this Court is that his statement establishes that the deceased was not on duty. What the learned Court below holds is that the deceased was on his way to perform his duties which are findings of fact and cannot be upset in appeal. The other three question are with respect to status of the deceased which stand adjudicated on facts. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for determination of this case. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. November 15, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), (jai) Judge