ASSOTECH Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') for setting aside the order dated 30th April, 2014 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-3, Gurgaon awarding compensation of ' 6,65,160/- with 12% interest per annum to the claimants of late Lal Dev Prasad who died of electrocution in the premises of the appellant on 27th July, 2012.

(2.) It is the case of the claimants in the application filed under Section 22 of the Act and in the oral evidence adduced on record that deceased Lal Dev Prasad was employed as a gardener with the appellant on a monthly salary of ' 8,000/-. The deceased left behind his wife and two children. He was 46 years of age at the time of death. The appellant denied the master and servant relationship. The claim was refuted before the Commissioner on the ground that the appellant never utilized the services of the deceased as an employee. Neither was the name of the deceased entered in the register of workmen employed by the appellant nor was his name included in the muster rolls of employees engaged by the appellant on the date of the accident i.e. 27th July, 2012. The deceased was a trespasser who had entered the premises of the appellant without consent. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 Sushila Devi Prasad, widow of the deceased were insufficient to prove whether the deceased was an employee of the appellant. Neither was a co-workman nor any independent witness was joined or examined in evidence to substantiate the plea of relationship of employment. Moreover, no documentary proof in the form of pay slips or any appointment letter etc. was placed on record by the claimants to prove the factum of employment. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that onus lies on the claimants to prove the factum of employment and they having failed to do so by way of documentary evidence, the claim cannot be sustained.

(3.) The death was reported to the police and Constable Deepak was produced as PW3 who tendered copy of the post mortem report as P1 and ration card as P2. The claimant's evidence upon which was closed.