The Bombay High Court has allowed the appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (Act), observing that produced records established the employer-employee relationship and that rejection of the compensation claim on that ground was not sustainable.
The case arose from an order dated May 9, 2012, passed by the Labour Commissioner, under which the applicant’s claim for compensation was rejected. The case concerned a fatal accident in which the deceased died while driving the vehicle. While submitting his contention, the applicant has relied upon various records, including the FIR and the statement of the vehicle owner, to buttress that the deceased is the driver. A legal notice issued by the dependents seeking compensation remained un-replied.
Hearing the appeal, the bench of Justice Jitendra Jain framed the question of law as to whether the Labour Commissioner was justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the employer-employee relationship was not established. The Court examined the statutory scheme, including Sections 2(dd) and 2(e) of the Act read with Schedule II, and noted that a driver engaged temporarily for a motor vehicle falls within the definition of employee, and there is no need for a contract in writing, but oral or implied is also sufficient for it.
On short-term or temporary engagement, the court has observed that in case of temporary engagement, absence of documentary proof is not decisive if other records indicate an employer-employee relationship, while placing reliance on the cases of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohan Kumar Sahoo & Anr. (2003 (4) L.L.N. 634) and Mahendra Shah Vs. Baldev Singh (2011 SCC OnLine Raj 2775). Further, taking note of the FIR, the owner’s statement, and the undisputed fact that the deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, the court held it as sufficient to establish the relationship, and the order of the labor commissioner could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated May 9, 2012, was quashed and set aside. Looking at the fact that the accident happened in 2009, the Court requested the Labour Commissioner to calculate the compensation payable within 8 weeks from the date of the applicant’s application along with a copy of the order.
Appearances:
Advocate Varsha Nichani a/w Advocate Roshil Nichani for the appellants.
Advocate Sanjay Krishnan i/by Leges Consultus for respondent no.2.
