1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 1231/2008 Jagdish Govindbhai Pitrode & Ors...vs..Smt. Sumanai Vishwnath Buradkar & Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 9 th JANUARY, 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. An appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act can be entertained only if substantial question of law arises. The question sought to be urged by the appellants is that the deceased Govindbhai Pitrode, against whom the Commissioner has passed the order, was himself an employee of non applicant no. 1-Dall Mill. The said employee namely Govindbhai expired during the pendency of workmen's compensation proceeding and his legal heirs were brought on record. The present proceeding is by his legal heirs. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants, states that there was no employer-employee relationship between Govindbhai and deceased Vishwanath 2 Buradkar. Notice to produce document was filed before the Commissioner and no documents were filed by Proprietor/ owner. He further states that the said Proprietor/owner did not enter the witness box. According to him, therefore, as employer-employee relationship between the deceased Govindbhai and deceased Vishwnath is not established the impugned order is untenable. 3. Mr. Dandekar, learned counsel for respondent no. 5-original non application no. 1 (Dall Mill owner) and Mr.Ahirrao, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4 legal heirs of deceased Vishwnath, pointed out that the legal notice was served upon Govindbhai and compensation was demanded from him. The deceased Govindbhai did not accept it. It is, however clear that after the proceedings were instituted, Govindbhai though served did not file any written statement and expired 3-4 years after institution thereof. The legal heirs of deceased Govindbhai thereafter filed written statement and took this plea. 3 4. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2007 delivered by Commissioner. The Commissioner has considered all the relevant facts while answering issue no. 1. I do not see any substantial question of law arising for consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, at this stage, prays that legal heirs of deceased Govindbhai in the alternative have pleaded that the Dall Mill owner was also responsible for payment of compensation and there could not have been direction only to the legal heirs of Govindbhai to pay compensation amount. In view of defence raised by the legal heirs as discussed above, the contention is being opposed and I am not inclined to grant this prayer. The same is therefore rejected. JUDGE kahale