Employer’s failure to file written statement precludes disputing employer-employee relationship in appeal under Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The appellant is the owner of an agricultural field where the deceased, Sanjay Koli, was hired for digging a well at a daily wage of Rs. 150/-

On January 26, 2005, while performing this work under the appellant’s instructions, the deceased suffered a fatal electric shock from a leaking wire attached to a bulb

He passed away during treatment on January 27, 2005

The dependents filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Despite being granted sufficient time, the appellant failed to file a written statement or lead evidence to contest the claim

The Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Amreli, awarded Rs. 4,48,000/- with 12% interest to the dependents

The appellant challenged this on the ground that the deceased was hired by a contractor (Opponent No. 2) and not the appellant directly

1. Whether the appellant can challenge the employer-employee relationship in the absence of a written statement and evidence before the lower tribunal?

2. Whether the appeal involves a "substantial question of law" as required under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?

The court applied Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which mandates that an appeal to the High Court lies only if a "substantial question of law" is involved

The court defined "substantial" as something essential, real, or of sound worth, rather than merely academic or technical

It also relied on the principle of pleadings, noting that a party cannot raise factual defenses on appeal that were not raised via a written statement in the original proceedings

The court found that the appellant’s primary contention—that the deceased was hired by a third-party contractor (Opponent No. 2)—was a factual dispute that required evidence

However, because the appellant failed to file a written statement or produce any evidence before the Commissioner, these claims remained unsubstantiated and could not be entertained for the first time in an appeal

The court noted there was no record to prove the work was subcontracted

Consequently, the appellant failed to demonstrate any "substantial question of law," as the grievance was rooted in contested facts that the appellant had previously waived the right to defend

The court affirmed the award of Rs. 4,48,000/- with 12% interest and ordered the Commissioner to release the funds, including accrued interest, to the claimants immediately. Any interim relief previously granted was vacated