Rinku Devi vs Abhimanyu Singh and Another

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act 1923 is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.11.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ranchi in W.C Case No. 03 of 2000 whereby he has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant claiming compensation on account of death of her husband.

The appellant filed the aforementioned claim case being W.C. Case No. 03 of 2000 stating inter alia that her husband was under employment of respondent since the year 1992. During the course of employment under respondent No. 1, the deceased Dhananjay Singh @ Bablu Singh obtained driving licence for Light Motor Vehicles from 15.4.1996 till 14.4.1999 and thereafter, her husband obtained driving licence for Heavy Motor Vehicles from 15.4.1999 till 14.4.2002 from District Transport Officer, Ranchi. Since then, the deceased was, driving the vehicle as a driver of the respondent. The claimant-appellants further case was that during the course of employment, the deceased was assigned work to transport waste paper from Ranchi to Kharsariya. Accordingly, the deceased reached Kharsariya on 23.11.1999 and stopped the truck at Madanpur Chowk where he suddenly fell ill. Hence he was accompanied by khalasi Mohan Kumar. Because of illness, the husband of the appellant died on 23.11.1999 at Kharsariya. The claim case was contested by the respondent by filing written statement denying the relationship of employer and employee. According, to the respondent, deceased Dhananjay Singh @ Bablu Singh was never employed by the respondent. The respondent''s further case was that the death of Bablu Singh never took place in the course of employment.

The Tribunal after considering the facts of the case and the evidence available on record, held that not a single chit of paper was produced in support of relationship of employer and employee in between the deceased and the respondent. On the other hand, sufficient documents were produced by the respondent who is the owner of the vehicle, to show that the deceased was not engaged as a driver in the truck. Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed.

Mr. Indrajeet Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment and award as being illegal, contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal recorded a perverse finding that the deceased was not employed under the respondent Learned Counsel submitted that admittedly one Mohan thakur was the khalasi in the said truck and he in his deposition has supported the claim of the claimant. Another witness Md. Nayeeem, the alleged driver of the said truck, has also stated that Mohan Thakur was khalasi of the truck. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has further committed grave error of law in holding that the claim application was wholly without jurisdiction.

Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that not a single chit of paper was filed in support of the employment. Even the driving licence has not been produced, learned Counsel submitted that in all the papers before and after transportation of the articles by the said buck, the name of Md. Nayeem was mentioned as driver and the deceased was nowhere shown either as driver or cleaner of the truck. Learned Counsel submitted that even the driver Md. Nayeem was examined who deposed that he was the driver of the truck on the relevant date and transported the articles. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim case filed by the claimant making a false claim.

We have perused the judgment and also considered the evidence adduced by the parties. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Presiding Officer has recorded a finding of facts after appreciating and discussing the entire evidence and held that the relationship of employer and employee has not been established. The finding on the issue of relationship of employer and employee is a finding of fact.

Section 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act specifically provides that appeal against the judgment paused under the Workmen''s Compensation Act shall be entertained only when substantial question of law is involved. In the instant case, as noticed above, no substantial question of law is involved. The claim application has been dismissed on the basis of finding of facts recorded by the Tribunal and also on the basis evidence adduced by the parties. We do not find any reason to hold that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse in law.

For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.