M/S A.W.X. CACON vs MANOJ PATEL

1

CGHC010423002024 2026:CGHC:45155
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 90 of 2025
1. M/s A.W.X. Cacon Plant No. 196, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tehsil And
District Korba Chhattisgarh.
2. Apoorva Wasan S/o Gulshan Wasan Aged About 37 Years R/o Plant
No. 196, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellants
versus
Manoj Patel S/o Dhaniram Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village
Hardibazar, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
MAC No. 967 of 2023
Manoj Patel S/o Dhaniram Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village
Haridibaazar, Police Station Kusmunda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
Versus
1. A.W.X. Kakon Plant No. 196 Through Director, Transport Nagar Korba,
Tahsil And District Korba (Chhattisgarh)
2. Apoorv Wasan S/o Gulshan Wasan R/o Plant No. 196 C. G. Transport
Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (Chhattisgarh)
--- Respondents
For Appellant/Respondent : Mr. Harshwardhan Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent/Appellant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Patel Advocate along with
Vikas Patel, Advocate.

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
26.10.2026
1. Mr. Harshwardhan Agrawal, learned counsel, for the appellants and Mr.
Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, along with Mr. Vikas Patel, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent in MAC No. 90 of 2025.
2. Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan along with Mr. Vikas Patel, learned counsel,
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Harshwardhan Agrawal, learned
counsel, appearing for the respondents in MAC No. 967 of 2023.
3. These two appeals have been filed under Section 30 of the Employees’
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, “the Act of 1923”), against the
award dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner for Employees’
Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.), in Case
No. 14/E.C. Act/2022 (Non-Fatal). Both appeals are being heard and
decided by this common judgment.
4. MAC No. 90 of 2025 has been filed by the alleged employer, whereas
MAC No. 967 of 2023 has been filed by the claimant. The parties shall
hereinafter be referred to as the claimant and the alleged employer.
5. Facts of the case are that the claimant filed an application under Section
10 of the Act of 1923 seeking compensation from his employer on
account of permanent injuries and permanent disablement suffered by
him in an accident that occurred on 25.02.2022, arising out of and in the
course of his employment with the alleged employer.
6. As per the pleadings in the application, the claimant was working as a
supervisor (Munshi) with the employer and apart from his supervisory
duties, he was also engaged in driving vehicles and working as a
cleaner and mechanic of vehicles owned by the alleged employer. It was
further pleaded that the claimant was being paid a salary of Rs.12,000/-

3
and an additional amount of Rs.8,000/-, making his total monthly wages
Rs.20,000/-.
7. The Notice of the claim application was issued to the alleged employer.
However, as none appeared on their behalf, they were proceeded
against ex-parte. The claimant led evidence before the learned
Commissioner, who thereafter passed an award granting compensation
of Rs. 25,83,360/- by the impugned order.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the alleged employer as well as
the claimant have preferred the present appeals.
9. This Court, on 01.09.2025, admitted MAC No. 90 of 2025 on the
following substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether the Commissioner erred in law in holding that there
is employee and employer relation between claimant and non-
applicants ?
2. Whether, the Commissioner committed error of law in
passing ex-parte order ?
3. Whether the income of the injured assessed by the
Commissioner is on higher side?”
10. MAC No. 967 of 2023 was also admitted on 01.09.2025 on the following
substantial question of law:
“1. Whether granting interest by the Commissioner at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of application, is perverse and
illegal?
2. Whether, the Commissioner was justified in not awarding any
amount towards penalty ?”

4
11. Learned counsel for the appellants in MAC No. 90 of 2025 submits that
the appellants herein were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the
claim application before the learned Commissioner. However, a perusal
of the order sheets passed by the learned Commissioner would show
that, although notices were issued to both respondents therein, the
notice issued to respondent No. 2 was served, whereas the notice
issued to respondent No. 1 was returned un-served on account of the
office being found closed. It is, therefore, submitted that notice of the
claim application was never served upon respondent No. 1, yet the
learned Commissioner proceeded ex-parte against it. The order passed
by the learned Commissioner in this regard is, therefore, liable to be set
aside.
12. Learned counsel further submits that, as per Notification No. का.आ. 71(अ)
dated 03.01.2020, issued by the Central Government and published in
the Gazette of India, the monthly wages to be taken into consideration
for the purpose of computation of compensation under the Employees’
Compensation Act, 1923, have been specified as Rs.15,000/-. However,
the learned Commissioner assessed the compensation by taking the
claimant’s monthly wages as Rs.20,000/-, thereby exceeding the limit
prescribed under the aforesaid notification. It is also contended that the
claimant failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee
between the parties. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the
findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are liable to be set aside
and that the substantial questions of law be answered in favour of the
appellants.
13. Per contra, Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan along with Mr. Vikas Patel,
learned counsel appearing for the claimant submit that the findings
recorded by the learned Commissioner are justified in view of the facts

5
and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record.
They submit that respondent No. 2 is the proprietor of respondent No. 1
and, therefore, service of notice upon respondent No. 2 would establish
that respondent No. 1 was aware of the proceedings before the learned
Commissioner though the signature was unavailable in the aforesaid
notice of respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that, in any event, the
respondent would have an opportunity to participate in the proceedings
upon remand. With regard to the relationship of employer and employee,
learned counsel submit that the same stands duly established by the oral
evidence of the claimant. As the claimant’s testimony was not subjected
to cross-examination, there was no reason for the learned Commissioner
to disbelieve his evidence. Accordingly, the finding recorded in this
regard does not warrant interference.
14. Learned counsel for the claimants, however, are not in a position to
dispute that, in terms of the applicable notification No. का.आ. 71(अ) dated
03.01.2020, issued by the Central Government and published in the
Gazette of India, the maximum monthly wages to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of computation of compensation are
Rs.15,000/-.
15. Learned counsel further submits that no penalty was imposed upon the
alleged employer, whereas interest at the rate of 6% per annum was
awarded. The substantial questions of law, therefore, deserve to be
answered in favour of the claimants, and the appeal preferred by the
alleged employer deserves to be dismissed.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with
utmost circumspection.
17. There is no dispute that, in the cause title of the application filed under
Section 10 of the Act of 1923, two parties were arrayed as respondent

6
Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 is stated to be M/s A.W.X. Cacon Plant
No. 196, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba
Chhattisgarh, whereas respondent No. 2 is Apoorva Wasan S/o Gulshan
Wasan Aged About 37 Years R/o Plant No. 196, Transport Nagar,
Korba, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.
18. A perusal of the record would show that notices were issued to both
respondents by the learned Commissioner. However, the order sheet
dated 11.11.2022 indicates that notice was served upon respondent No.
2, whereas the notice issued to respondent No. 1 remained un-served as
its office was found closed. Though learned counsel for the appellant in
MAC No. 90 of 2025 has sought to persuade this Court that respondent
No. 1 is a firm and respondent No. 2 is the person managing its affairs,
no document has been placed on record to establish that respondent
No. 2 is the proprietor of the firm.
19. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, it is also not in dispute that, in terms of
the applicable notification No. का.आ. 71(अ) dated 03.01.2020, issued by
the Central Government and published in the Gazette of India, the
maximum monthly wages to be taken into consideration for the purpose
of computation of compensation are Rs.15,000/-, whereas the learned
Commissioner assessed the compensation by taking the claimant’s
monthly wages as Rs.20,000/-. Prima facie, the assessment of wages is
contrary to the prescribed ceiling.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in
proceeding ex-parte against respondent No. 1 without service of notice
upon it. The finding in this regard cannot be sustained and warrants
interference.

7
21. Accordingly, the substantial question of law concerning the validity of the
ex-parte proceedings is answered in favour of the appellant in MAC No.
90 of 2025. The matter is required to be remitted to the learned
Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
22. Since the matter is being remanded to the learned Commissioner for
Employees’ Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Korba, District Korba
(C.G.), for fresh consideration of the claim application in Case No.
14/E.C. Act/2022 (Non-Fatal), this Court is not inclined to decide the
remaining substantial questions of law at this stage, as the same may be
affected by the findings recorded upon such fresh consideration.
23. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner for
Employees’ Compensation on 22.12.2026.
24. The record be transmitted back to the learned Commissioner forthwith.
25. It is made clear that the parties shall be at liberty to file their respective
pleadings and additional documents and to lead further evidence, if so
advised, in support of their respective cases.
26. The amount deposited by the appellants shall not be recovered from the
claimant at this stage and shall remain subject to the final outcome of the
claim application.
27. The learned Commissioner shall make every endeavour to decide the
claim application expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months
from the date of appearance of the parties.
28. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
Abhishek