[Service Law] HC Can Interfere With Compensation Commissioner's Order If Employer-Employee Relationship Not Established: Kerala High Court

As per the facts, the appellant was ordered to pay over six lakhs by the Employees Compensation Commissioner as compensation to the respondent for an accident that allegedly took place during employment.

Justice T. R. Ravi set aside the order of the Employees Compensation Commissioner on the finding that no employer-employee relationship was proved between the appellant and respondent. The Court reached the above conclusion by relying upon decisions in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2022), C.Manjamma & Anr. v. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2022) and Golla Rajanna v. Divisional Manager & Anr. (2016).

“A reading of all the judgments cited would clearly show that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction if there is a total absence of evidence regarding the question of employer-employee relationship, which is the jurisdictional fact that needs to exist for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner. The law laid down in the above-said decisions also permits an analysis of the evidence on record to see whether there is a total lack of evidence. However, if there is any evidence available, the court will not be justified in interfering in an appeal, which needs to be on a substantial question of law.”

The appellant approached the High Court aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner to grant compensation by assuming the existence of employer-employee relationship without any evidence.

The respondent contended that he sustained injuries while drilling rock for the construction company of the appellant. He fell down from the rock to the ground with the jackhammer and sustained injuries over the backbone, head, ribs, hands, and legs, damage to the spinal cord, damage to the urinary bladder, etc., and underwent surgery for spinal cord.

The appellant submitted that respondent was not a workman under him and that he does not have any construction business and has never conducted business of crushed stone materials. It was stated that carried business of leasing earth movers (JCB) and has only employed some JCB workers.

The Court noted that the Commissioner has not considered any evidence regarding the relationship between the appellant and respondent. It also stated that none of the evidence produced before the Commissioner proves that the employer-employee relationship.

The Court referred to North East KRTC v. Sujatha (2018) to state that existence of employer-employee relationship is a substantial question of fact which should have been proved by evidence. Court added, “On consideration of the evidence on record, it has to be concluded that there is absolutely no proof regarding the employer-employee relationship.”

The Court further noted that the letter issued by the Tahsildar also does not prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the respondent. As such, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the order of the Commissioner.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocates Abraham George Jacob, C.Muralikrishnan (Payyanur), P.I.Raheena, Shahna

Counsel for Respondent: Advocates C S Manilal, S Nidheesh

Case Number: MFA (ECC) NO. 18 OF 2024

Case Title: Sakkir Husain v Binu Madhu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

Click here to read/download Order