Police statements and dying declarations are admissible to prove employment relationships under the Employees Compensation Act.

The deceased, Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Makwana, was allegedly a part-time helper for the appellant company.

On February 20, 2017, he was directed by the appellant’s Marketing Manager (Defendant No. 2) to attend a repair call for a compression machine at the premises of Defendant No. 3.

During the repair, the machine exploded due to high air pressure, causing fatal injuries to Jayeshbhai.

His widow and son filed a claim under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (EC Act).

The Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded Rs. 7,88,240/- plus 12% interest and a 10% penalty.

The appellant challenged the award, arguing there was no employer-employee relationship, the deceased was not on their rolls, and the widow had remarried.

The court applied Section 30 of the EC Act, which restricts appeals to cases involving a "substantial question of law".

It relied on Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal (2006) to define such a question as one that is arguable and not previously settled.

Section 3 of the EC Act was invoked regarding employer liability for accidents "arising out of and in the course of employment".

Regarding evidence, the court applied Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act (dying declarations) and Section 35 (relevancy of public records).

It further held that the bar under Section 162 of the CrPC regarding police statements does not apply to civil proceedings or beneficial legislation.

The Court held that the appellant failed to raise a substantial question of law, as the dispute was primarily factual.

On the merits, the Court found the deceased’s statement to the police, recorded before death, to be a relevant "dying declaration" under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, as it described the cause of death and the instructions given by the appellant's Marketing Manager.

The Court noted that while the appellant denied the employment relationship and produced salary registers, their own witness admitted that executive names were also missing from such registers, rendering the documents unreliable.

The Court emphasized that the EC Act is social welfare legislation where strict proof under the Evidence Act is not required.

It rejected the appellant's challenge to the police statements, ruling that Section 162 CrPC only prohibits their use in criminal inquiries/trials, not in civil claims under the EC Act.

It held that the deceased was indeed an employee who died during the course of employment and that the evidence sufficiently supported this finding.

The Commissioner was directed to release the compensation amount to the claimants.

All connected civil applications were disposed of.