IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO. No. 263/2005. Date of Decision : December 9,2009. Arjun Singh. ..Appellant. Versus M/s J.K.Minerals Puruwala and others. ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent-1 : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud J. (Oral) This appeal has been preferred by the workman against the award made by the Commissioner (SDM) under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. on 30.4.2005 dismissing the claim of the appellant herein holding that the relationship of employer and employee had not been established by the appellant. It is not in dispute before me that respondents No. 2 and 3 are the partners of respondent No.1-M/s J.K. Minerals Puruwal, Tehsil Paonta Sahib and have a factory/stone crusher in Puruwala operating it in partnership. The appellant-claimant claimed to be employed with the respondents which fact, according to the Commissioner, has 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes 2 not been proved. He claimed compensation for the injuries, which according to him, he suffered while working on the crusher and suffered 70% disability by amputation of the forearm resulting from injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on 2.4.2000. The appellant also pleaded that the respondents entered into a compromise with him by paying a sum of Rs 45,000/- for the injury and also promised re-employment. On the evidence, the Commissioner held that the relationship of employer and employee had not been established. This appeal was admitted on 7.7.2005 but the questions of law in the appeal had not been specified. Question No.4 as formulated with the grounds of appeal was taken as substantial question of law for consideration. Compromise (Ext. PA) has been signed by the appellant, respondent No.2 and witnessed by Sh. Pankaj Bhatnagar. It is titled as “Samjhota Nama”. This compromise is vital for the decision of this case. The compromise is clear and unequivocal indicating that the appellant does not want to institute any proceedings against the respondents as they have reached an agreement that he (appellant) will be re-employed by the respondents after his recovery from the injuries sustained by him. No other evidence was required to establish the relationship of employer and employee. This document is clear and unequivocal that such relationship exists and re-employment would be provided to the appellant. Under what circumstances, 3 the Commissioner has ignored this document, is not clear nor established on the record of the case. The pleading on this point is also clear. The version of the respondents that this was a document which was got written under pressure of the police, cannot be accepted. The respondents have not taken any action to have this agreement annulled/set aside or to have lodged a complaint with the police or any other authority that the respondents were forced to compromise the matter with the appellant, under pressure or coercion etc. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently urged that the evidence of RW-3 establishes that Ext. PA was executed under pressure from the police. This submission requires to be rejected. This fact has not been established from the pleadings or from the evidence of RW-2. There is also no attempt made by the respondents to take any action for having this compromise set aside. This question is decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. The award of the Commissioner is therefore, set aside and the case is remanded to the Commissioner for decision afresh in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed. The Commissioner shall determine the compensation payable to the appellant herein. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation on 30.12.2009. The Registry is directed to send the record to the 4 Commissioner (SDM) Under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. December 9, 2009(R)