FAO-5631-2002 (O&M) 230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5631-2002 (O&M) Decided on : 04.02.2026 Jagseer ….Appellant Versus Sh. Krishan ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ***** Present :- Mr. Bikramjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. J.S.Thind, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for the respondent. ***** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Challenge is to order dated 26.07.2002 passed by Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2 Commissioner dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimant failed to prove employer-employee relationship with the respondent. 3 Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Commissioner relying upon testimony of Chhotu Ram, AW-3, who happens to be the real brother of the respondent, the alleged employer. He submits that his brother appeared before the Commissioner and testified regarding the victim being employee of respondent. Even co-worker, namely Atama Ram, was examined to prove the employer-employee relationship. Commissioner thus erred in ignoring the aforesaid overwhelming evidence to prove employer-employee relationship. POOJA SHARMA 2026.02.06 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5631-2002 (O&M) 4 Per contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate would submit that the entire case of the claimant is that he suffered injuries while working on tubewell in the fields of the respondent. The positive case pleaded by the respondent before the Commissioner, apart from denying relationship was that there is no tubewell in his fields. The same was so testified in his oral testimony. The said evidence has gone un-rebutted. 5 Having heard learned counsel of the parties and after carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that once the appellant-victim specifically pleaded that he had suffered injuries while working on tubewell, the onus was upon him to prove existence of tubewell in the fields of respondent. He having failed to dislodge the evidence adduced by the employer negating the existence of tubewell in the fields, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Commissioner. 6 Finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 04.02.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2026.02.06 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document