FATMA BEGUM Vs. BHURE KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner rejecting the claim filed by the appellant.

(2.) MST . Fatma Begum filed an application on 14 -4 -70 under Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') claiming Rs. 6000/ - as compensation against the respondent. The allegation was that her husband Ijazuddin was in the employment of respondent where the latter was working on a mine worked by the respondent and he died as a result of accident during the course of employment on 5 -4 -70.

(3.) AN effort was made by the counsel for the respondent Mr. Bhargava to challenge the finding of issue No. 2 that the deceased was in the employment of the respondent Bhure Khan and that the respondent was carrying on the mine on 5.4.70. Undoubtedly the respondent was a lessee of the mine upto 31.5.69. The learned court has referred to the inquiry made by the Mines Engineer, Bhilwara who submitted a report dated 16.4.71 to the court that on the date of the accident respondent was carrying on the mine though in an unauthorised manner. Similarly is the letter from the Joint Director of Mires Safety dated 26.5.70 about the occurrence of the accident and the Joint Director by his letter of 26.4.71 informed the Court that Bhure Khan was the owner of the mine on 5.4.70, the date of the accident. It is not disputed by the respondent that he had lease of the mine upto 31.5.69. He has not led any evidence to show that he had handed over the possession to the Department He had however stated in his evidence that the work was earned on by one Shri Hamid Khan but curiously he had produced neither the said Hamid Khan nor has given any evidence to substantiate. I would in the circumstances affirm the finding of the court below and hold that on the date of accident Bhure Khan was carrying on the mine PW 2 Ijazuddin had stated that on coming to know of the accident to the deceased be went to the mine; though be was cross -examined no suggestion was given to him that the deceased never worked in the mine. The respondent has also not produced his after dance register or employees register to show that the deceased was not one of his employees. It has therefore to be held the deceased wag in the employment of the respondent when the accident took place on 5.4.70.