SUKRAMPAL SINGH Vs. BALDEV ELECTRIC CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, dismissing the claim application filed by the appellant. The claim of the appellant is that he was employed with the respondent as a general purpose Mechanic cum Mason and on the fateful day when he was repairing something at the premises of the respondent, he got his eye injured and ultimately blinded in one eye.

(2.) The case of the respondent, on the other hand, was that the appellant was not his employee but a freelancer. He also denied that the accident took place at the premises of the respondent. The Commissioner decided the claim petition against the appellant for two reasons. Firstly, one employee of the respondent had appeared who had denied that the appellant was ever a co-employee with him. A register was also produced which shows list of employees which was signed by other co-employee but the name of the appellant did not figure in the said list.

(3.) In these circumstances, the Commissioner held that the appellant had not been able to prove the preponderance of probability in his favour.