VIVEK AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sudhir Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant - The Oriental Insurance Company and Sri Ram Singh, counsel for respondent no. 1.
(2.) This appeal under section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant namely Oriental Insurance Company, Allahabad being aggrieved of the 28.10.2016 passed by Commissioner Workmen Compensation / Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad in EC Case No. 108 of 2014 (Tabassum Bano and others Vs. M/s Sushil Singhal and another.
(3.) Following three ground have been raised by counsel for the appellant:- (i) That in place of discharging the burden as to employment of the deceased, Insurance Company, whose onus is to indemnify the employer, has raised a ground that on the basis of the photostat copy of the papers showing employment of the workman on the basis of which the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has passed an award, therefore award is perverse. (ii) In absence of the employer appearing before the designated authority, no effective award could have been passed against the Insurance Company, thus award is vitiated. (iii) That on the date of award i.e. 28.10.2016, notice was issued on the aspect of penalty to respondent no. 1 - owner of the motor vehicle, and on the same date award has been passed against Insurance Company, thus award is vitiated. ;