IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MFA NO.2462/2010 (WC) BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATESH S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O LENIN NGARA NITTUVALLI NEW EXTENSION DAVANAGERE (BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI ALKURAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O BOGALERAHATTI VILLAGE CHIKKAGINDANAHALLI POST CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT (BY SRI B.L.KUMAR, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant/claimant made a claim before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Davanagere, on the ground that he suffered injury while in employment.
2. Considering the case of the appellant, issues have been framed. In so far as issue No.1 is concerned, the Commissioner held that the claimant has failed to prove that he suffered injuries on 18.06.2008 when he was working as Hamali in the lorry belonging to the respondent and dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has failed to establish employer-employee relationship.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding of the learned Commissioner is not based on any evidence and is contrary to law.
4. The learned Commissioner, having examined the claim of the appellant, found that there was no material to prove employer-employee relationship and dismissed the claim petition assigning justifiable reasons. Therefore, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE bkv