Rajender v. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jul 2010
- Bench
- RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3008 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:28.07.2010. M/s Parag Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Appellants Rajender ...Respondent Versus CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is directed against order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) by which respondent/claimant has been awarded compensation on account of the injuries suffered during the course of his employment. The only grievance raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that there does not exist relationship of an employer and employee between the appellant and the respondent, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any compensation. During the course of hearing, on 20th July, 2010, counsel for the appellant had taken time to show salary register of the FAO No.3008 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** employees who were working with the appellant during the year 2007 but no such register has been produced. In fact, the appellant has withheld the said register with ulterior motive as the appellant knows that it would prove the relationship of employer and employee of the appellant and respondent. The appellant did not produce salary register before the Commissioner as well, as a result of which the Commissioner relied upon the evidence led by the respondent and granted compensation. After perusing the impugned order thoroughly, I do not find any error of law in it and as such the present appeal is dismissed in limine. July 28, 2010 vinod* (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 28 Jul 2010. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.