EASOW EASOW Vs. RAJAN KALLIPPARA THEKKEVEETIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner directing the appellant and the second respondent to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000 to the first respondent for an injury sustained in an accident on 8th March 1984. The first respondent herein filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation against the appellant and the second respondent alleging that he was a workman employed under them and while engaged in rock blasting on 8th March 1984 he sustained an injury resulting in the loss of vision of right eye. He claimed that he was receiving a monthly wage of Rs. 780. He claimed Rs. 20,000 as compensation from the opposite parties. There was a delay of 3 months and 20 days in filing the claim petition. The claimant had filed an application to excuse the delay. It is seen from the records that without notice to the opposite parties the Commissioner condoned the delay and accepted the claim on file and issued notice to respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the procedure adopted by the Commissioner in condoning the delay without notice to the opposite party. However, it is taken on file as early as in 1986. There have been protracted proceeding, the case was once dismissed for default and was restored in file later and thereafter considered on merits. Hence the condonation of delay does not call for interference at this stage. So this appeal is heard on merits.

(2.) The contention taken by the appellant is that the first respondent claimant was not an employee under him and so he is not liable for any compensation. The claim petition does not itself give any details of the accident except stating that the claimant sustained injury as a result of a piece of rock hitting his eye while he was engaged in rock blasting. Even the place of the accident is not mentioned. The petitioner has also not stated the relationship between the two respondents and how he happened to be the employee under both of them. The counter statements filed by the respondents also did not give any details except denying the employer - employee relationship and any notice or information of the accident or the injury sustained by the claimant. Thus, neither the claim petition nor the counter statements do give any information useful for deciding the relationship between the parties. The claimant giving evidence as ) P.W. 1 on his side, stated that he was an employee under the respondents and they were his employers. He also stated that while engaged in work he sustained injury and as a result the vision in the right eye was lost. He further stated that he was receiving Rs. 30 as daily wage and was employed for 26 days in a month. In cross examination, he only stated that both the respondents engaged him for

(3.) The appellant was examined as D.W. 1. He denied any connection with the claimant. He stated that