FAO No. 731 of 1988 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 731 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.5.2011 Mohan Lal ... Appellant vs M/s Delux Pattern Industries .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. S. Goraya, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 19.4.1988 passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the application filed by the appellant for award of compensation on account of injury allegedly sustained by him during the course of employment, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was in the employment of the respondent establishment. He lost his left eye while working in its establishment. The accident took place on 30.8.1984. The appellant was getting wages @ ` 600/- per month. Considering those factors, he was entitled to ` 24,000/- as compensation. Pointing out the illegality committed by the learned court below, learned counsel argued that there was material evidence on record in the form of copy of statement of Harjinder Singh, recorded in the criminal case where he had admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant was working with the respondent. The same was totally ignored by the learned court below. Rather to dislodge the claim of the appellant, they produced on record false and fabricated documents in the form of attendance register, other forms and certificates to show that the appellant was never employed with the respondent establishment. In fact, it was the FAO No. 731 of 1988 -2- duty of the Employees' Compensation Commissioner to visit the site to ascertain the true facts. No one has appeared for the respondent despite service. It is a case in which the appellant claimed that the accident occurred when he was on duty with the respondent in which his left eye was damaged. The dispute is, as to whether the appellant was in the employment of the respondent and also whether he suffered any injury during the court of employment. In his cross-examination, the appellant stated that he knew Harjinder Singh as the owner of the respondent company. Whereas Sulakhan Singh, partner of the respondent company while appearing as RW1 stated that firm consisted of three partners namely- Sulakhan Singh, Jassa Singh and Balbir Singh. Harjinder Singh was not one of them. In support of his plea, the appellant did not produce before the court below any independent evidence. He stated that there was no other worker working in the establishment when the accident took place, which cannot be believed. Instead of going to Civil Hospital, Batala, which was situated nearby, the appellant preferred Kaushalya Devi Sanan Eye Hospital, Batala. The OPD card, Ex. AW3/1, of that hospital has number of cuttings and does not show the type of injury the appellant had suffered. In addition to that the appellant had produced one attendance card, Ex. AW4/4 for the month of August 1984. However, the same does not contain name of the employer or the signatures of any of the representatives of the employer. Coupled with the facts that in his cross-examination, he could not state when he joined service and for what period he had been in the employment of the respondent, it cannot be opined that the appellant had been able to prove his relationship with the respondent. The statement of Harjinder Singh, Ex. AW1/1 was recorded in the criminal case no. 66 dated 23.5.1985 and produced in the present proceedings, cannot be relied upon for the reason that only one line stated there in isolation that the appellant was employee of Delux Firm cannot be read against the respondent firm considering the fact that it was totally out of context. FAO No. 731 of 1988 -3- It has come in the statement of Sulakhan Singh that there was some fight between Harjinder Singh and the appellant for which FIR was lodged but copy of the FIR is not on record. However, copy of statement which was produced on record as AW1/1 in these proceedings was apparently recorded in the aforesaid criminal case. The onus to prove that the appellant was in employment with the respondent was on him which he utterly failed to discharge. In the absence of any material on record, it cannot be said that the learned court below has committed any error while recording the finding that the appellant was not entitled to any compensation as he failed to prove the relationship of employee and employer. Finding no illegality in the order passed by the learned court below, the present appeal is dismissed. 24.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge