Employer’s admission in FIR regarding workman's status establishes employer-employee relationship under Employee’s Compensation Act.

The appellant’s son, Vishal, died from gunshot wounds sustained during an armed robbery while working at the respondent’s shop, "All in One Shop," on June 25, 2021.

The appellant filed a claim for compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1963, alleging Vishal was a workman earning Rs. 20,000 per month.

The respondent contested the claim, asserting the deceased was merely a friend of his son and never an employee.

The Commissioner dismissed the claim on December 16, 2024, finding that no employer-employee relationship was proved.

The appellant appealed this dismissal to the High Court.

1. Whether there existed an employee-employer relationship between the deceased, Vishal, and the respondent?

2. Whether the death occurred due to injuries sustained in the course of and out of employment?

3. Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation under the Act?

The court applied Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1963, which provides for appeals against the Commissioner's orders.

It also considered Section 4A regarding interest and penalties for non-payment of compensation.

The court relied on the evidentiary principle that the initial burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish employment, which can be discharged via circumstantial evidence and admissions in contemporaneous documents like a First Information Report (FIR) or Post Mortem Report, even in the absence of formal appointment letters or bank-transferred wages.

The Court observed that in informal sectors, workers are often engaged without formal ID cards and paid in cash.

It scrutinized the FIR lodged by the respondent himself, which explicitly stated that the deceased was engaged on a "part-time basis" and was present at the shop during the robbery.

The Court noted that the respondent's son was identified as the "employer" in the Post Mortem report.

Furthermore, during cross-examination, the respondent admitted that other undisputed employees were also paid in cash without documentation and conceded that the contents of the FIR (stating the deceased was an employee) were not false.

Consequently, the Court found the respondent failed to rebut the evidence, proving the deceased was indeed an employee.

It held that an employer-employee relationship existed and that the fatal injuries were sustained in the course of and out of employment.

The Court directed the matter to be listed before the learned Commissioner on March 9, 2026, for the specific determination and grant of compensation amount in accordance with the law.