$~29 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010223442019 + FAO 205/2019&CM APPL. 22309/2019 CM APPL. 22311/2019 M/S SHIV MOHAN BAND THROUGH SOLE PROP. & ANR. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajiv Bakshi and Mr. Ram Pravesh Rai, Advocates versus MUNNI DEVI & ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aakash Rastogi and Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. The present appeal, filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, “the Act”), is directed against the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi in LIR No. CEC/SD/D/56/2017/1192-1194, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 came to be allowed. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.7,83,560/- towards compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 12.01.2017 till realization and further imposed a penalty of Rs.3,89,280/- upon the appellant. 2. The claim application was filed in respect of the death of one Kunwar Singh @ Kumarsen (hereinafter, “the deceased”). It was claimed that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:34:57 deceased was employed as a „Band Master‟ with the appellant at a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and was engaged through the contractor - Mr. Cheda Lal (arrayed as respondent no. 2 before the labour commissioner). It was further claimed that, at times, the appellant had also directly engaged the services of the deceased. On 13.12.2016, the deceased had gone to perform his duties as a Band Master at Tivoli Garden Banquet Hall, Chhattarpur, New Delhi, at the instance of the appellant. While performing his duties, the deceased felt uneasy and complained of pain in his head. It was alleged that despite his request, he was not taken for immediate medical treatment and, in the meantime, expired. Notice of the claim application was issued to the appellant as well as the contractor. While the latter failed to appear, the appellant contested the claim. 3. In support of the claim, respondent No.1 examined herself and also examined co-workers, namely, Shri Hori Lal and Shri Som Pal as CW-2 and CW-3. The aforesaid witnesses deposed regarding the deceased's engagement with the appellant and his presence at Tivoli Garden on the relevant date. The claimant also placed on record the medical record/death certificate of the deceased, which was exhibited as Ex.CW-1/1. Copies of complaints dated 13.02.2017 and 27.11.2017 addressed to the SHO, P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur were also placed on record and exhibited as Ex.CW-1/2 (colly.). 4. In the present appeal, the appellant has raised three-fold contentions. Firstly, that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of the Act. Secondly, that the employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the appellant was not established and the onus to prove the same was upon the claimant. Thirdly, that there was no cogent medical evidence to establish the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:34:57 circumstances or cause of the deceased's death. 5. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, the perusal of the record reveals that no such specific contention was raised before the learned Commissioner and, accordingly, no issue was framed in this regard. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, the claimant had stated that no documentary record evidencing the employment relationship was provided by the appellant. However, the testimony of the claimant and the two witnesses examined by her was relied upon by the learned Commissioner. As regards the third contention, the claimant placed on record the death certificate, which records the date of death as 13.12.2016. The evidence of the witnesses regarding the uneasiness suffered by the deceased and failure to provide immediate medical treatment was also considered by the learned Commissioner in this regard. 6. An appeal under Section 30 of the Act has a limited scope and lies only where a substantial question of law arises for consideration. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner, based upon appreciation of evidence, ordinarily do not warrant interference unless such findings are shown to be perverse or unsupported by the evidence on record. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.1, wherein it was held that the Commissioner is the final authority on facts and that the High Court, in an appeal under Section 30 of the Act, cannot re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless a substantial question of law 1 (2017) 1 SCC 45 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:34:57 arises. The jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act is thus confined to examining substantial questions of law and does not extend to substituting the findings of the Commissioner merely because another view is possible. 7. Tested on the aforesaid principles, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the findings returned by the learned Commissioner. The findings regarding the employer-employee relationship and the death of the deceased in the course of employment are findings of fact based upon the evidence led before the learned Commissioner. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the said findings are perverse or give rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference by this Court. 8. Finding no ground to interfere, the present appeal is dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- stands deposited with the learned Commissioner. The said amount shall be released to the claimants along with the interest accrued thereon. The remaining amount payable in terms of the impugned Award shall also be paid to the respondents within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till realization. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J AUGUST 5, 2026 sn This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:34:57