Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 A.F.R. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 434 of 2024 (From the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.282-D of 2019) State of Odisha …. Appellant (s) -versus- Ruibari Murmu & Ors. …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr.Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-05.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-19.08.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The instant petition challenges the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum- Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.282-D of 2019, whereby the Commissioner directed the Appellant to deposit compensation of Rs.19,49,438/- for disbursement to the claimants. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows: Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified
Facts
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 (i) The instant petition challenges the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.282-D of 2019, whereby the Commissioner directed the petitioner to deposit compensation of Rs. 19,49,438/- for disbursement to the claimants. (ii) The deceased allegedly died of electrocution on 26.08.2019 while working as a mason (Raja Mistry) engaged in construction of a Security Guard Post building at Government ITI, Jajpur. An Unnatural Death (UD) case was registered at JajpurSadar Police Station following the incident. (iii) The claimants filed E.C. Case No. 282-D of 2019 before the Commissioner, who allowed the claim and fastened liability on the petitioner to pay compensation with penalty and interest. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in proceedings, examine its witnesses, or cross-examine the claimants’ witnesses. (ii) The Commissioner erred in relying solely on the oral evidence of PW-1 (daughter of deceased) to hold that the deceased was a workman engaged by the petitioner. The petitioner had categorically stated in its written statement that it had no engagement with the deceased at the relevant time. Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 (iii) The petitioner had already handed over all projects at Government ITI, Baruan to the Principal, Government ITI, well before the date of the alleged incident. The last project was handed over on 25.10.2017 (Skill Development Training Centre on 24.06.2016). After this, no work was undertaken by the petitioner at the said premises. (iv) A report of the Assistant Engineer, Baruan (R&B) Section dated 06.12.2021 confirmed that the deceased was not engaged either departmentally or through any agency. The Commissioner wrongly discarded this evidence. (v) Since the petitioner had no ongoing project at the site on 26.08.2019, it had no employer-employee relationship with the deceased, and hence no liability under Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. (vi) On the issue of quantum of wages, the Commissioner arbitrarily fixed the deceased’s income at Rs. 15,000/- per month solely on oral testimony, without any documentary proof, making the computation of compensation unsustainable. (vii) The Commissioner erroneously relied on documents produced by Opposite Party/Respondent No.5 suggesting that the construction of Security Guard Post was under petitioner’s supervision, whereas in reality the petitioner had no role in that work. (viii) Even assuming, without admitting, that the deceased was working under the petitioner, the Commissioner failed to apply statutory provisions and State Government wage notifications while calculating compensation, leading to a grossly inflated figure. Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 (ix) The Commissioner wrongly awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, amounting to Rs. 5,68,163/- in addition to compensation of Rs. 13,81,275/-, which is unsustainable since the deceased was not an employee of the petitioner. (x) The imposition of penalty of 50% of compensation along with interest for non-deposit within 30 days is arbitrary, especially since an appeal is a continuation of proceedings and liability to deposit cannot be fastened pending adjudication. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The applicants (wife, daughter, and son of deceased RuhayaMurmu) filed a claim for compensation alleging that the deceased, working as a mason (Raja Mistry) in the construction of a Security Guard Post at Government ITI, Jajpur, died due to electrocution on 26.08.2019. (ii) Opposite Parties 1 to 3 denied any employer–employee relationship with the deceased and contended they had no liability. Opposite Party No. 4 (Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Panikoili) denied knowledge of the accident/employment in its written statement but failed to appear for examination or disclose the name of any contractor. (iii) Issues framed: (i) Whether the deceased was a workman under the E.C. Act? (ii) Whether his death arose out of and in course of employment? (iii) Whether applicants were entitled to compensation, and what quantum? (iv) Who was liable to pay? Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 (iv) On Issues 1 & 2, the Commissioner held that documents such as FIR, inquest report, PM report, and UD case papers, coupled with the sworn testimony of PW-1 (daughter), proved the deceased’s employment as mason, the accident, and subsequent death. Oral and documentary evidence were considered credible; there was no effective rebuttal. Thus, findings were entered in favour of the applicants. (v) On Issue 3 (quantum of compensation), the Commissioner accepted the age of the deceased as 40 years, based on police papers and PW-1’s deposition. Wages were claimed as Rs. 15,000/- per month and though unsupported by documents, in the absence of cross-examination or rebuttal by the Opposite Parties, the Commissioner fixed wages at Rs. 15,000/- p.m. Compensation was calculated as per formula (50% of wages (cid:215) age factor 184.17) = Rs. 13,81,275/-. (vi) Relying on SC precedents and Orissa High Court rulings, the Commissioner awarded interest @12% p.a. from date of accident (26.08.2019) till date of order (30.01.2023), amounting to Rs. 5,68,163/-. Total compensation: Rs. 19,49,438/-. (vii) On Issue 4 (liability), the Commissioner analyzed records and held that: Opposite Parties 1–3 (including Principal of ITI) were not liable since they neither employed nor paid the deceased. The construction of the Security Guard Post was under the control and supervision of Opposite Party No. 4, Executive Engineer (R&B), Panikoili Division, Jajpur, who failed to attend court or disclose the actual contractor. Police papers corroborated the accident and employment. Consequently, liability was fastened upon Opposite Party No. 4. Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 (viii) Final Order: The petition was allowed in part. Opposite Party No. 4 (Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Panikoili) was directed to deposit Rs. 19,49,438/- within 30 days, failing which he would be liable to pay an additional penalty of 50% of compensation along with 12% interest per annum from the date of accident as per Section 4A of the I. 5. 6. Employees Compensation Act, 1923. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and meticulously analysed the documents placed before this Court. At the outset, it is noted that an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 lies only on a substantial question of law. The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or overturn factual findings of the Commissioner unless they are shown to be perverse or not supported by any evidence. In the case of GollaRajanna Etc. vs The Divisional Manager And Anr1, the Supreme Court aptly held as follows: the the Act, scheme of “Under the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.” 1AIR 2016 SC 5382. Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 7. In the instant appeal, the appellant has raised legal issues that merit consideration as substantial questions of law. These include: (i) whether the proceedings before the Commissioner were conducted in breach of audialterampartem (hear the other side), thereby vitiating the award; and (ii) whether the Commissioner’s finding of an employer- employee relationship is sustainable in law given the lack of cogent evidence. These questions go beyond mere re-appreciation of facts and call for legal scrutiny. The Court will address each in turn. 8. The appellant contends that the Commissioner decided the claim without giving the appellant a fair opportunity to participate, lead evidence, and cross-examine the claimants’ witness. It is a fundamental tenet of law that no one should be condemned unheard; an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a nullity and cannot be sustained. The record of the proceedings before the Commissioner has been perused. It shows that the appellant was served notice of the claim and in fact filed a written statement denying liability. However, it appears that subsequent hearing dates were not attended by the appellant or its representatives. The claim was eventually decided ex parte on the basis of the claimants’ unrebutted evidence. 9. To claim a breach of natural justice, the appellant must show that it was effectively denied the chance to be heard despite diligence on its part. In the present case, the absence of the appellant in the inquiry was volitional or at least not adequately explained. There is no material to suggest that the Commissioner refused to hear the appellant or shut Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 out its evidence arbitrarily. On the contrary, the appellant had entered appearance and filed its statement; it then failed to produce any witness (such as the Assistant Engineer who authored the report dated 06.12.2021) or to cross-examine the claimants’ witness when the matter was taken up. If a party, after having notice, chooses not to participate in the proceedings, it cannot later turn around and allege that it was denied an opportunity. The right to a fair hearing implies an opportunity to be heard, but the party must also avail that opportunity diligently. Mere inaction or absence on the part of the litigant does not amount to a denial by the adjudicator. 10. In view of the above, the Court is not persuaded that there was any procedural illegality or violation of natural justice by the Commissioner. The appellant was afforded due notice and the chance to contest the claim. The fact that the Commissioner proceeded to decide the case on the basis of available evidence, when the appellant failed to appear, does not violate any principle of fairness. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit Alias Ranbit Kaur and Ors.2held that proceedings under this Act are summary in nature and not bound by strict rules of the Civil Procedure Code or Evidence Act. Within that flexible procedure, the Commissioner did issue notice and consider the pleadings on record. Therefore, the challenge to the award on the ground of audialterampartem is answered against the appellant. The impugned order cannot be set aside solely on this ground. 2AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2143 Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 11. Now, it is imperative for this Court to turn to the issue of existence of Employer-Employee Relationship. The foremost prerequisite for compensation under Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 is the existence of a jural relationship of employer and employee between the deceased/injured person and the respondent at the time of the accident. The Act mandates that the injury or death must arise out of and in the course of employment with the alleged employer for liability to accrue. If a person was not engaged as a workman by the opponent, no compensation can be claimed from that opponent. It is thus incumbent on the claimants to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the deceased was employed by the appellant in some capacity and that the fatal accident occurred in the course of that employment. 12. In the case at hand, the only evidence asserting an employment relationship with the appellant is the oral testimony of PW-1 (the deceased’s daughter). She stated that her father was working as a mason (Raja Mistry) in the construction of the Security Guard Post at the Government ITI, Jajpur under the supervision of the appellant’s department. In addition, certain documents from police records, including the FIR, inquest report, and final police report in the UD case, were produced, which indicate that the death occurred due to electrocution at the construction site of the ITI on 26.08.2019. Notably, however, none of these documents explicitly names the employer or contractor who engaged the deceased. They merely record the factum of death at a workplace. The Commissioner, in his judgment, inferred employment under the appellant largely because the site in question, Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 ITI building works, fell within the domain of the R&B Division, headed by Opposite Party No.4, the appellant, and because Opposite Party No.4 did not come forward to disclose the actual arrangement of work at that site. Essentially, the Commissioner drew an adverse inference against the appellant due to its non-participation, assuming that, since no alternate employer was identified, the appellant must be considered the employer. 13. The appellant’s consistent stand, both in the written statement before the Commissioner and in this appeal, is that it had no ongoing project or contract at the ITI, Baruan (Jajpur) on the date of the accident. The appellant claims that all construction projects at the said ITI were completed and formally handed over to the institute authority by October 2017 – nearly two years before the incident. In support, a letter/report dated 06.12.2021 from the Assistant Engineer, Baruan R&B Section was filed, stating that the deceased workman was not engaged either departmentally or through any agency at the site on that day. Unfortunately, since the appellant did not lead the evidence of the Assistant Engineer or any other official at trial, this report remained an exhibit without a sponsoring witness and was summarily discarded by the Commissioner. The other opposite parties, the Principal of ITI and the contractor firm involved in earlier projects, also denied engaging the deceased, thus leaving an evidentiary vacuum as to who, if anyone, employed the mason on that fateful day. 14. Having reviewed the record, this Court finds that the claimants did not discharge the burden of proving an employer-employee relationship Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 between the deceased and the appellant to the degree required, especially when the allegation was specifically refuted. It is trite that the burden lies on the claimant to establish the foundational facts of the claim, i.e. the fact of employment under the respondent and that the accident arose in the course thereof. A mere assertion by an interested family member, without any independent corroboration, cannot be conclusive proof of employment, particularly when the opposite side has entered contest. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of ShantabaiAnandaJagtap and Anr. v. JayramGanapatiJagtap and Anr.3held as follows: “The relationship of employer and employee has not been proved before the Commissioner. In our opinion, the same being the basic requirement to be fulfilled for claiming compensation under the 1923 Act, the appellants may not be entitled to receive any compensation.” 15. In the present case, beyond the testimony of PW-1, who admittedly had no direct connection with the work site apart from being informed of the accident after the fact, there is no oral or documentary evidence pinpointing the appellant (R&B Division) as the employer. No coworker or supervisor from the site was examined. No work order, muster roll, wage register, identity card or any employment document was produced to link the deceased with the appellant’s project. On the contrary, the undisputed evidence is that the construction of the guard room was underway at the ITI on 26.08.2019, but who was executing that work was left shrouded in mystery due to lack of inquiry. The 3Civil Appeal No.5786/2012. Page 11 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 Commissioner assumed it to be under Opposite Party No.4’s “control
Legal Reasoning
and supervision” by default. This, in our view, was a speculative leap not supported by firm evidence. 16. On a careful appreciation of the above facts, this Court is constrained to hold that the Commissioner’s finding on Issue Nos.1 and 2 (that the deceased was a workman under Opposite Party No.4 and that his death arose out of and in course of such employment) is legally unsustainable. It was certainly open to the Commissioner to draw an adverse inference against the appellant for non-production of evidence; however, an adverse inference alone cannot fill the total absence of a proved employer-employee nexus. The circumstances raise a strong suspicion, but law requires proof, even if prima facie. The possibility that the construction in question may have been undertaken by the ITI or another local agency, informally or through a petty contractor, cannot be ruled out, especially since the appellant had formally handed over the premises long back. In such a scenario, fastening liability on a department which had no privity of contract or control over the deceased workman at the relevant time would be erroneous. In sum, the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was employed by the appellant on the date of accident. This finding alone goes to the root of the matter, in the absence of an employer-employee relationship, no liability can be fastened under Section 3 of the Act on the present appellant. 17. Normally, a factual finding by the Commissioner would not be disturbed in appeal. But where, as here, a vital finding is arrived at Page 12 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 without any supporting evidence and on an erroneous presumption, the High Court is justified in treating it as a substantial error of law. 18. Consequently, the impugned order, to the extent it holds the present appellant liable to pay compensation, cannot be sustained in law. The claim against the appellant is liable to be dismissed. It is indeed unfortunate that the legal dependants of the deceased may be left without compensation despite a tragic death. However, this outcome flows from the failure to establish the identity of the true employer under whom the deceased was working. The Court can only observe that it would be open to the claimants, if so advised and if permissible in law, to initiate appropriate proceedings against the actual tortfeasor or employer, if any, who engaged the services of the deceased for the construction work. This Court, however, is tied in the present appeal, which is confined to determining the liability of the Opposite Party No.4 as per the pleadings and evidence on record. 19. In sum, the appeal succeeds on the primary issues of lack of employer- employee relationship. The impugned order of the Commissioner dated 04.02.2023 is found to be infirm in law and fact insofar as it fastens liability on the present appellant. The claimants may have indeed suffered a great loss due to the death of their bread-winner, but a compensation claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act can be maintained only against the actual employer (or person treated as such under the Act). That crucial link was not established in this case against the appellant. Consequently, the Commissioner’s award cannot be upheld. Page 13 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 19:41:54 20. 21. 22.
Decision
For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No. 282-D of 2019 is hereby set aside. As a result, the claim petition against the present Appellant stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr.SanjeebK. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the19th August, 2025/ Page 14 of 14