M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the order dated 24.11.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro in W.C. Case No.02 of 2004 whereby he has dismissed the application filed by the appellant for compensation mainly on the ground that there exist no relationship of employer and employee.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The appellant filed application for payment of compensation on the ground of receiving injury while working as Lath Operator in the factory of the respondent. The appellant claimed that he received the injury arising out of and in course of employment and as a result of injury, he suffered permanent disability and loss of 100% earning capacity. The respondent appeared and contested the claim taking preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the case. The respondent denied the allegation that the appellant is the employee. The respondents case is that the appellant is an employee of M/s. Chhinnamastika Steel Industries, Bokaro Industrial Area, Bokaro and by virtue of being an employee, he came within the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and his registration number is 1161187 and he has been getting medical treatment and other benefits under the provisions of the aforesaid Act for the injury received by him. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro after considering the facts and the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of master and servant or employer and employee in between the appellant and the respondent and the alleged accident was not arising out of and in course of employment with the respondent. Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has committed serious illegality insofar as it held that there exist no relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that there are sufficient evidences on the record and conclusive proof to the fact that the appellant met with an accident in course of employment of the respondent M/s. V.J. Rao and Company, Bokaro and, therefore, he is entitled for compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has rather committed serious illegality in disbelieving the statement of the witnesses without any valid reasons.
(3.) MR . Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that admittedly the appellant was in the employment of M/s. Chhinnamastika Steel Industries, Bokaro Industrial Area, Bokaro and being an employee, he was a member of ESI and was covered under the provisions of E.S.I. Act. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant received compensation under the said Act for the injury sustained.;