High Court of Delhi

Maha Laxmi Hosiery vs. Govind Singh and Ors.

MANU/DE/2111/2022

06.06.2022

Labour and Industrial

In proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable

The Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking setting aside of the order/judgment passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee Compensation. The learned Commissioner, while passing the impugned order allowed the claim petition of the workman and awarded him compensation of Rs.2,87,136 alongwith interest @ 12% from 24.04.2008 till deposit.

In view of the fact that the statement of the workman is supported by co-workman-Rakesh Sharma, as well as reports of the (i) Labour Inspector, (ii) Inspector of Factories and (iii) Deputy Director, ESIC, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Commissioner rightly reached at the conclusion that respondent No.1/workman was working with the firm(s)/management in question at the time of accident and that the accident occurred during the course of his employment on 24.03.2008.

Although the appellant has raised a contention that the reports were not proved by the concerned scribe, this Court deems it apposite to refer in this regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit alias Ranbir Kaur and Others, wherein it was held that in proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable. The Commissioner can lay down his own procedures and for the purpose of arriving at the truth, rely upon such documents which are produced before it. Respondent No.1/workman was able to establish his case before the learned Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : Compensation Grant Legality

Share :