Manoj Kumar Ohri JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act') seeking setting aside of the order/judgment dated 15.09.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee Compensation, North District, Delhi in WCD/106/NW/06/2076-78.
2. Brief facts, as borne out from the case records, are that respondent No. 1/Govind Singh (hereinafter, referred to as 'the workman') had filed a claim application on 12.06.2005 seeking compensation under the Act for injury suffered by him during the course of his employment with the firms namely, M/s. Sanjeev Hosiery and M/s. Maha Laxmi Hosiery. It was claimed that he was working as a Machine Man since January, 2003/November, 2005 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 8,000/- per month.
The accident in question had taken place on 24.03.2008, at about 03:30 pm, when the workman's foot got stuck in a shaft, on account of which he fell down and suffered injury. It was claimed that the workman at the time of the incident was about 33 years of age and had suffered disability of about 60%. It was also stated that the services of the workman were terminated on the same day i.e., the date of the incident. 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.
3. The relevant extract of the impugned order reads as under:-
"7. That the workman filed disability certificate dated 17/12/2009 in which clearly mentioned that workman was disabled 62%. This certificate was received by this court on application dated 05/09/2009 and direction given by this court to medical supdt. Sanjay Gandhi Hospital dated 07/1/2009. As per disability certificate dated 17/12/09 age of the applicant is 34 years at the time of accident and the workman mentioned that his wage was Rs. 8000/- at the time of accident but wage limit only Rs. 4000/- for computing compensation at relevant time. Accordingly amount of compensation calculated as under:-
199.40 x 2400 x 60/100 = 2,87,136/-"
4. Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order raised the following contentions:-
i) That the workman has failed to discharge the onus of proving the employer-employee relationship; in this regard, reliance was placed on the Award dated 22.03.2011 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 389/09 and the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Automobile Assoc. Upper India v. P.O. Labour Court II & Anr.
ii) That the reliance on the statement of Sh. Rakesh Sharma, a co-workman, was misplaced as he had deposed on the directions of the workman.
iii) That the learned Commissioner ought not to have placed reliance on the Inspectors' reports dated 09.06.2008 and 03.11.2008, as the same were not proved on record by the scribe of the reports but rather by the workman himself.
5. Mr. Hari Kishan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, supported the impugned order/judgment by submitting that the workman had duly proved the employer-employee relationship on the basis of Inspectors' reports and statement of a co-workman. He further submitted that in the proceedings before the Labour Court, the workman was unable to place on record material in support of his case/lead evidence, and the issues came to be decided by the learned Presiding Officer in absence of cogent material. It was also submitted that the procedure before the Employee Compensation Commissioner is summary in nature and thus rules of evidence are not to be strictly followed. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the dec........