Admission In Employer's Written Statement Sufficient To Prove Employment Relationship Under Workmen's Compensation Act: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court quashed an order rejecting a compensation claim by the kin of a deceased worker holding that a clear admission made by the employer in a written statement filed before the authority is sufficient to establish existence of an employer–employee relationship under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 

In doing so the court observed that strict proof as per Indian Evidence Act is not expected while deciding claims under Workmen's Compensation Act the primary objective of which is to protect workmen. 

Justice Devan M. Desai was hearing a first appeal filed by Bhimaben, widow of Bhagoji Raghoji Uttekar, and other legal heirs of the deceased worker against Nanubhai Ramanlal Shah and Amrutbhai Panchal, challenging an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Vadodara.

Apart from the admission contained in the written statement of the respondent filed before the authority, the court noted, that the claimants had also examined an independent witness who supported their case that the deceased was working for Nanubhai and had fallen from the structure during the course of work. It emphasised that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a piece of social security and welfare legislation.

“It is well settled proposition of law that the Act is a piece of social security and welfare legislation. The dominant purpose of the Act is to protect the workmen and the provisions of the Act are not to be interpreted in a narrow manner so as to exclude the employee from compensation. Strict proof, as contemplated under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not expected while deciding the application under the Employee's Compensation Act. Learned Commissioner is expected to interpret the evidence in a lenient manner, more particularly, when the opponents – objectors choose not to contest the Claim Application by leading any contrary evidence. The evidence in the present case is sufficient in establishing a fact that there existed a relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and opponent No. 1. The learned Commissioner has completely given a go-by in considering an admitted fact which is found in the written-statement,” the Court observed.

The appeal was filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against a judgment dated September 30, 2008, by which the Commissioner had rejected the claim on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove the existence of an employer–employee relationship.

According to the family, Bhagojirao Uttekar was engaged in painting advertisement boards for Nanubhai, a contractor, and Amrutbhai, who acted as a supervisor. The deceased was allegedly paid daily wages and overtime.

On November 6, 1988, while painting an advertisement board, Bhagojirao fell from the structure, suffered serious injuries and later died during treatment.

A statutory notice dated December 24, 1988 was issued to Nanubhai and Amrutbhai under the Workmen's Compensation Act. As no compensation was paid, the family approached the Commissioner seeking compensation along with interest and penalty.

Before the Commissioner, while Nanubhai had filed a written statement, Amrutbhai, though served, did not contest the proceedings. The widow of the deceased examined herself and another witness in support of the claim. However, the Commissioner dismissed the claim holding that the worker's heirs had failed to establish that the deceased was an employee of Nanubhai and Amrutbhai.

Appearing for the worker's heirs, Advocate B.K. Raj argued that the Commissioner had ignored a crucial admission made by Nanubhai in his written statement which was filed before the Commissioner.

He submitted that Nanubhai had in the written statement clearly admitted that there had been a discussion with the deceased regarding the painting work, that the rate was fixed and that Bhagojirao had already commenced the work prior to the accident. According to counsel, this admission itself established the employer–employee relationship.

It was further pointed out that neither Nanubhai nor Amrutbhai had entered the witness box or produced any evidence to contradict the claim. Though served, none appeared on their behalf before the High Court.

After examining the record, the Court agreed with the submissions advanced on behalf of the claimants.

The Court further held that the Commissioner has committed a grave error in rejecting the application of the deceased workman's kin. 

In the present case, the Court held that the evidence on record, coupled with the admission made in the written statement, was more than sufficient to establish the relationship of employer and employee.

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the Commissioner.  

Case title: BHIMABEN WD/O BHAGOJI RAGHOJI UTTEKAR & ORS. Versus NANUBHAI RAMANLAL SHAH & ANR.

Case no.: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1035 of 2009

Counsel for Appellants: Advocate B.K. Raj

None for respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Order