1 MAC No. 484 of 2021 2026:CGHC:1129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 484 of 2021 Director, Welcome Distillery Chherkabandha, Police Station Kota, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Ishwari Bai W/o Late Arjun Kaiwart R/o Village Junapara, Khurdur, Police Station Kota, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jaideep S/o Late Arjun Kaiwart R/o Village Junapara, Khurdur, Police Station Kota, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sandeep S/o Late Arjun Kaiwart R/o Village Junapara, Khurdur, Police Station Kota, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Surajmul Kaiwart S/o Samelal Kaiwart R/o Village Junapara, Khurdur, Police Station Kota, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.01.08 17:50:54 +0530 2 MAC No. 484 of 2021 Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 08/01/2026 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), calling in question the legality and correctness of the award dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur, in Case No. E.C. Act/38/2015 (Fatal), whereby compensation of ₹7,88,240/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, funeral expenses of ₹5,000/-, and litigation expenses have been awarded in favour of the respondents/claimants. 2. (a) The factual backdrop, in brief, is that the respondents/claimants, who are the wife, son, son and father, respectively of Arjun Kaiwart (since deceased) filed an application under Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act contending that the deceased was engaged in unloading husk and feeding the boiler in the factory premises of the appellant on 25.08.2014 and, during the course of such work, due to leakage of chemical/gas inside the factory, his health suddenly deteriorated and he collapsed within the factory premises, resulting in his death. It was pleaded that at the time of incident the deceased was earning ₹8,000/- per month and that the claimants, being his wife, sons 3 MAC No. 484 of 2021 and father, were his legal dependents claimed compensation of Rs.8,73,880/-. (b) The appellant contested the claim by denying the employer- employee relationship and asserting that no accident had occurred inside the factory premises and that the death was not connected with employment. (c) Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Commissioner recorded findings that the deceased was working under the appellant through authorised engagement for husk unloading work, that the death occurred in the course of and arising out of employment, and that the claimants are the legal dependents entitled to compensation. The compensation was accordingly computed in terms of Section 4 read with Schedule IV of the Act and interest was awarded from the date of accident. Hence, this appeal 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no iota of evidence to establish employer-employee relationship, none of the witnesses were present at the spot, there are contradictions in the testimony of the claimants’ witnesses coupled with the viscera report indicating alcohol consumption show that the death was not accidental and that the learned Commissioner failed to properly appreciate the provisions of Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act. It was contended that the findings are arbitrary, perverse and contrary to law. 4 MAC No. 484 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, while supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Court Commissioner has rightly calculated the compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Before adverting to the merits of the submissions, it is necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act lies only on a substantial question of law. The scope of interference is extremely limited and this Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 30, cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions on facts unless the findings recorded by the Commissioner are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a jurisdictional error. 7. On careful perusal of the impugned award and the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding regarding the employer-employee relationship after relying upon documentary evidence, particularly the merg intimation (Ex.P-1), which clearly indicates that husk unloading work was being carried out inside the factory premises through an authorised contractor and that the deceased was brought to work on the relevant date. It is well settled that engagement through a contractor does not absolve the principal employer of liability under the Employees’ Compensation Act. 5 MAC No. 484 of 2021 The finding recorded by the learned Commissioner on this aspect is based on evidence and does not suffer from any perversity. 8. As regards the plea that the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment, it is evident from the record that the dead body of the deceased was found near the boundary of the factory premises. The appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish that the deceased had left the factory premises after completion of work or that the death occurred outside the sphere of employment. Once the occurrence is shown to have taken place within the workplace, the burden shifts upon the employer to rebut the presumption, which, in the present case, has not been discharged. The inference drawn by the learned Commissioner that the death occurred during the course of employment is a pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference. 9. Much emphasis was laid by the appellant on the alleged consumption of alcohol by the deceased, relying upon certain statements in cross- examination and the viscera report. However, the said contention is misconceived in law. The proviso to Section 3(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act excluding liability on account of intoxication applies only to cases of injury not resulting in death or permanent total disablement. In cases where death has occurred, the statutory liability of the employer is not excluded merely on the allegation of alcohol consumption. Even, the postmortem report shows the death due to poison and hence, the death due to leakage of gas/chemical cannot be avoided. The learned Commissioner has rightly appreciated the legal position and, therefore, no error of law can be said to have been committed on this count. 6 MAC No. 484 of 2021 10. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the proposed question of law cannot be regarded as satisfying the test of being ‘substantial question of law’ within the meaning of Section 30 of the Act. These questions, in my view, are essentially question of facts. The appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law which is required under Section 30 of the Act. In any event, the instant Appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act, no case is made out by the appellant herein. The order impugned passed by the learned Labour Court is just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 11. The quantum of compensation has been calculated strictly in accordance with Section 4 read with Schedule IV of the Act, and the award of interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident is rightly held by the learned Labour Court. The grant of funeral expenses is also statutorily mandated and does not warrant interference. 12. On an overall consideration, this Court finds that all the grounds urged in the appeal essentially seek re-appreciation of evidence and challenge findings of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner. None of the questions framed by the appellant can be said to constitute a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act. The findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law and do not suffer from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error. 7 MAC No. 484 of 2021 13. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The award dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur, is affirmed. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul