RAVINDER Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.No.29841/2016 (Delay)

(2.) In proceedings under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, appellant has been burdened with liability to pay compensation of Rs. 1,98,901/- with interest by holding appellant to be the employer and the compensation awarded to the respondent-injured is on account of sustaining injuries while operating the welding machine and as per the disability certificate, the disability suffered is of 20% on account of chopping of two fingers i.e. little finger and ring finger of the left hand. While taking the income of the injured at the minimum wages, the compensation has been worked out by the Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is working with a property dealer after closure of the welding shop and there is no document on record to show that any such relationship existed between the appellant and the respondent-injured. It is also submitted that the attendance card does not bear the name of appellant's shop or of the appellant nor does it bear the signatures of the appellant and, so it is of no value and the impugned order erroneously holds appellant to be the employer of the respondent-injured and, so impugned order deserves to be set aside. Nothing else is urged on behalf of appellant.