KALYANI Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties in ECC No.79/2015, on the files of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner), Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as 'the Compensation Commissioner' for short), have filed this appeal assailing the final order of the said Court, as per which, they have been found liable to pay certain amounts to the claimant/respondent herein-who claims to have been employed by them for the purpose of cutting and removing a coconut tree in their property.

(2.) The appellants-who were both octogenarians at the time of the accident- assert that they had not engaged the respondent for cutting and removing any tree in their property and that they do not even know him, much less have employed him. They say that the Compensation Commissioner has, however, allowed the claim of the respondent merely based on his assertion that he had been employed by them; and thus contend that the impugned order and the impugned Award are untenable and prays that this appeal be allowed.

(3.) Smt.Celine Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in addition to the above, submits that, as is clear from the evidence available, the factum of the accident or that it took place in the property of the appellants have not been proved in any manner. She says that the sole piece of evidence relied upon by the respondent to establish these aspects is Ext.A7 enquiry report of the Assistant Labour Officer, Kozhikode III Circle, but that the alleged statement of the first appellants; based solely on which it was settled, was specifically denied by her while she offered oral testimony as RW1. She further says that to a pointed question put to RW1, she denied her signature in the statement appended to Ext.A7 report; and therefore, that the Compensation Commissioner could not have relied on the said document to find any liability against the appellants. The learned counsel, thereafter, submitted that the Compensation Commissioner has, in a rather mechanical factum, still found that the respondent was the employee of the appellants, merely based on his testimony as AW1. She, therefore, prays that this appeal be allowed.