Yogesh Sharma & Anr vs Geeta @ Jitu @ Gitu

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on :11.03.2026
% Pronounced on :16.03.2026
Uploaded on :16.03.2026
+ FAO 20/2018 & CM APPL. 1432/2018

YOGESH SHARMA & ANR .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Ms. Ridhika Gaur,
Advocates.

versus
GEETA @ JITU @ GITU .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utsav Jain, Advocate.
+ FAO 23/2018, CM APPLs. 1919/2018 & 24047/2018

GEETA@ GITU @ JITU .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Utsav Jain, Advocate.

versus
YOGESH SHARMA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Ms. Ridhika Gaur,
Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present set of appeals have been filed by the Management as well
as the workman seeking to assail the award dated 31.10.2017(also
mentioned as 06.11.2017) passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee's
Compensation (District-East), Labour Department, Government of NCT of
Delhi. While Management seeks setting aside of the award, the workman
contends that finding on ‘loss of earning capacity’ needs to be revised
upwardly and higher compensation is to be granted.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 20/2018 & FAO 23/2018 Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:16.03.2026
19:20:24

As common submissions have been addressed, both the appeals are
taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by way of a
common judgment.
2. Briefly, the workman had preferred a claim application wherein it was
claimed that she had been working with the respondent’s firm on monthly
wages of Rs.7,500/- since 24.07.2008 with the Management. It was claimed
that the Management was running their business under the name of M/s
Sharma Garments as well as under some other names and was operating
from two addresses i.e., 7313, Guru Govind Singh Gali, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031 and 46/2 Gali No.17, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110051. The
workman was neither given any appointment letter nor was her presence
marked in any attendance register. She was not even informed as to in which
firm she had been appointed, however, the workman used to go to both the
addresses. The respondents used to frequently change the name of the firm,
which was never intimated to the workman. The Management was also
working through one Rajender Batra , a senior employee who was working
on piece rate basis.
The workman and other employees were working on the third floor of
the building which had a lift facility being a multi-level building. However,
the lift was not working properly and on 24.05.2013 at about 7.00 PM, when
the workman used the lift, its chain broke and the lift fell while she and
other employees were inside. The workman, who was already suffering from
post-polio residual paralysis in her left lower limb, sustained injury on her
right leg and suffered a fractured. The Management took her to a private
hospital viz., Usha Memorial Orthopedic Centre at Krishan Nagar, Delhi.
She was threatened not to raise any complaint. Though she was discharged
Signature Not Verified
FAO 20/2018 & FAO 23/2018 Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:16.03.2026
19:20:24

from the hospital on 27.05.2013, her treatment continued till 21.05.2014.
When the workman asked for compensation, she was threatened again, on
following which she made a complaint to the police authorities on
17.07.2014.
3. In the proceedings before learned Commissioner, the Management
failed to appear and were proceeded ex parte . On a challenge made before
this Court by W.P.(C) 7915/2015, this Court vide order dated 01.02.2017 set
aside the ex parte award and remanded back the matter to the learned
Commissioner for fresh consideration. Vide the impugned order, an award
came to be passed in favour of the workman.
4. While assailing the impugned award, learned counsel for the
Management primarily contended that the learned Commissioner erred in
disregarding the testimony of Rajinder Batra, who was merely a tenant and,
in his deposition, stated that the claimant was not an employee but used to
come and meet some of the lady employees in his office. While denying the
factum of any accident as alleged, reference was made to the testimony of
the Management’s witnesses, namely, Ashwani Sharma and Yogesh Sharma ,
who had stated that neither workman was ever employed with them nor the
lift was ever operational.
In this regard, further reference was made to the testimony of one
Saurabh Kohli , who stated that he was given the contract for installation of
the lift, but the same was never made operational.
Lastly, it is contended that the workman had placed supporting
alongwith her claim application wherein her age has been stated differently
and the learned Commissioner erred in stating the age of the workman as 28
years. Even the Commissioner’s reliance on disability certificate issued on
Signature Not Verified
FAO 20/2018 & FAO 23/2018 Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:16.03.2026
19:20:24

11.05.2016 was also doubted as the same indicated 90% disability of right
lower limb whereas the injury was suffered on the right leg.
5. While opposing the above contentions made on behalf of the
Management, learned counsel for the workman submitted that the
Management’s own witness, namely Bhaskar Soni , admitted that the salaries
were paid in cash. It is further submitted that other witnesses also deposed
that the salaries were paid to the workman only in cash. Moreover, workman
also placed on record the printed white envelopes given from time to time
mentioning the name of workman.
6. Before proceeding further, this Court would like to take note of the
position in law as to the scope of Section 30 of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923, it is indeed settled through a number of decisions
that the scope of appeal under Section 30 is limited. Under the scheme of the
Employee's Compensation Act, the Commissioner is the last authority on
facts. Being a welfare legislation, the Parliament thought it fit to restrict
appeal only to a substantial question of (CR: Golla Rajanna & Ors. Vs.
1
Divisional Manager & Anr. ).
7. Keeping the aforesaid limited scope in view, this court has examined
the decision of the learned Commissioner.
8. Though it is contended on behalf of the Management that the learned
Commissioner has disregarded the testimony of Rajender Batra , however, a
reading of the same would reveal that he had not specifically depose that the
workman was not employed with the Management. His deposition is
completely silent on this aspect.

1
(2017) 1 SCC 45
Signature Not Verified
FAO 20/2018 & FAO 23/2018 Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:16.03.2026
19:20:24

9. The workman was examined by the Medical Board of GTB Hospital
which issued the disability certificate dated 11.05.2016 thereby certifying
that the workman had suffered 90% permanent locomotor impairment in her
right lower limb. It was further opined that the condition was non-
progressive/not likely to improve. The opinion was rendered by Head of the
Department of Orthopedics (UTMS & GTB Hospital), whereby it was
certified that the workman had suffered injury to her right lower limb. It was
further opined that the workman had pre-existing post-polio residual
paralysis of her left lower limb and her disability of right limb was 49%. Dr
Puneet Mishra as well as Dr R. K. Sachdeva , who had operated on the right
knee of the workman were also examined. The workman suffers from 90%
permanent disability in her right leg as certified by GTB Hospital and that
the earlier reference to the left leg in the disability certificate was a clerical
error later corrected. The learned Commissioner on consideration of the
disability certificates determined the loss of earning capacity of the
workman to the extent of 25%. Further, while accepting her age to be 28
years, granted compensation of Rs.3,89,508/-. A further sum of Rs.88,952/-
was awarded towards penalty. The present appeal is however, restricted to
the grant of compensation and not penalty.
10. Insofar as the employee/employer relationship is concerned, the
learned Commissioner has held that it was the Management, who had signed
the consent letter for the surgery of the workman. Further, the workman was
taken to the hospital immediately after the accident and arrangements for her
medical treatment were made by the Management. The learned
Commissioner also took into account the consistent testimony of the
workman, who deposed that she had been working with the respondents for
Signature Not Verified
FAO 20/2018 & FAO 23/2018 Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:16.03.2026
19:20:24

several years and had been shifted, along with other workers, to the premises
where the accident occurred. Additionally, it was noticed from the testimony
of the respondents’ witnesses that wages in the establishment were paid in
cash, which explained the absence of formal wage records.
11. Coming to the contentions relating to determination of age of the
workman, it is also noted that though there are various documents on record
indicating different ages of the workman, the learned Commissioner has
considered the Aadhar card, as per which the age of the workman is 28
years. Thus, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the exercise of
jurisdiction by the learned Commissioner was either improper or unjust. The
Management’s challenge to the impugned award therefore fails.
12. The workman has also sought enhancement of compensation through
her appeal. It is contended that loss of earning capacity ought to have been
calculated @ 100%, as the workman was already suffering from pre-existing
90% disability in her right lower limb and had further sustained 49%
permanent locomotor impairment in her right lower limb, owing to which
the workman is not able to carry out any work.
13. The learned Commissioner assessed the loss of earning capacity to the
extent of 25% as the workman did not elaborate on the nature of the work
carried out by her. Considering that physical disability of the workman in
both lower limbs stands established, one of which is caused by the accident
in question, the loss of future earning capacity is re-assessed at 50%.
14. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned
Commissioner for fresh computation of the compensation and its grant. The
amounts deposited by the Management in the first round as well as present
appeal with the Registry/Commissioner be released to the workman.
Signature Not Verified
FAO 20/2018 & FAO 23/2018 Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:16.03.2026
19:20:24

15. The matter be listed before learned Commissioner on 30.03.2026.
16. The present appeals, along with pending applications, are disposed of
in the above terms.
17. A copy of this judgment also be communicated to the learned
Commissioner.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
pmc
MARCH 16, 2026/

Signature Not Verified
FAO 20/2018 & FAO 23/2018 Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:16.03.2026
19:20:24