Oral Evidence Alone Insufficient to Prove Employer-Employee Relationship Absent Documentary Support Under EC Act

The Appellant (Claimant) filed an application under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, seeking ₹4,40,154/- in compensation for a permanent partial disability (30% loss of vision in the left eye)

He alleged that on May 18, 2020, while working for the Respondent, a brass rod piece struck his eye

The Respondent denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the occurrence of the accident during employment

The Workmen Commissioner, Jamnagar, dismissed the claim on January 6, 2025

The Appellant challenged this, primarily relying on a subsequent Labor Court order in Reference Case No. 62 of 2021 dated February 1, 2025, which had ordered his reinstatement

1. Whether the Appellant proved the existence of an employer-employee relationship with the Respondent at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the injury sustained by the Appellant arose out of and in the course of employment as per Section 3 of the EC Act.

3. Whether a subsequent, inconsistent judgment by a Labor Court regarding employment status overrides the findings of the Workmen Commissioner in the present proceedings.

Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, which mandates that an injury must arise "out of and in the course of employment" for liability to attach

The principle that the burden of proving the employer-employee relationship rests solely on the claimant, citing Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004)

General principles of the Evidence Act, 1872, noting that the party asserting a fact (the claimant) must prove it through cogent evidence, as held in Amar Chakravarty & Ors v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2011)

The Court observed that the Appellant failed to produce documentary evidence, such as salary slips or attendance cards, to substantiate his two-year employment claim

It noted the absence of witness testimony from co-workers or medical evidence from Dr. Amit Mehta to verify that the injury occurred at the factory

Regarding the Appellant's reliance on Reference Case No. 62 of 2021, the Court found that the Labor Court judgment was passed without considering the prior dismissal by the Workmen Commissioner, thus violating "judicial propriety"

The Court held that since the Labor Court's later judgment ignored the existing judicial record and lacked evidentiary support for the relationship, it could not reverse the Commissioner's findings

The Court concluded that no substantial question of law was involved under Section 30 of the EC Act, as the findings of the lower court were based on a correct appreciation of the lack of evidence

The order of the Workmen Commissioner dated January 6, 2025, was upheld