IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.262 of 2010 Date of decision : July 23, 2010 Arjun Singh …Petitioner. Versus M/s J.K. Minerals and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner, claiming himself to be a workman, under the respondents and having sustained an injury, while working for the respondents, made an application for compensation for the injury so sustained by him. Respondents, in their reply, denied the relationship of workman and employer. Commissioner, under the Workmen Compensation Act, accepted the plea of the respondents. Matter came to this Court in appeal. This Court accepted the appeal, vide judgment dated 9th December, 2009, copy Annexure P-4, holding that there was a compromise between the parties, copy Annexure PA, per which petitioner was acknowledged to be a workman and it was also acknowledged that on recovery from injury Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… he will be re-employed, and remanded the case to the Commissioner, under the Workmen Compensation Act, for deciding the same afresh and to determine the compensation, payable to the petitioner. 3. Commissioner, under the Workmen Compensation Act, has now permitted the respondents to lead evidence, though, of course, the petitioner was also afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, but he stated that he did not want to lead any further evidence. Petitioner’s grievance is that when the evidence had already been adduced, respondents ought not to have been afforded any opportunity to lead further evidence. Petitioner will, in no way, be prejudiced, in case the respondents are permitted to lead evidence. It is quite likely that the respondents intend to lead evidence qua the facts, which will help in determining the quantum of compensation. In case respondents lead evidence, with respect to the issue of relationship between the parties, that shall not be allowed to be adduced, because the question has already been determined by this Court, vide judgment dated 9th December, 2009, delivered in FAO. With the aforesaid observations, petition is dismissed. Copy dasti. July 23, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J