$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010453792023 + FAO 292/2023 & CM APPL. 58446/2023 M/ S RAHUL DAMPHER AND TRACTOR SERVICES THROUGH PROPRIETOR AMAR SINGH BHALLA.....Appellant Through: Mr. Jai Wadhwa and Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocates Versus BALA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Bhalla, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 14.08.2026 FAO 292/2023 & CM APPL. 58447/2023(condonation of delay) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the Award dated 17.10.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi in CEC/SD/D/21/2015/1615-1616, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent was allowed and compensation was awarded in her favour. 2. The claim before the learned Commissioner arose out of the death of the respondent's husband, late Sh. Jitender @ Jittu. The respondent claimed that the deceased was working with the appellant as a driver and was being paid wages of Rs.15,000/- per month. According to the respondent, the deceased had not been paid his wages since 01.05.2013. It was alleged that the appellant assaulted the deceased and pushed him out of the office. The deceased thereafter returned home and narrated the incident to 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 21/08/2026 at 11:49:41 respondent. The respondent further alleged that the deceased was subsequently called to the appellant's office on the pretext of settling his outstanding wages and, thereafter, his dead body was found. The deceased died on 02.01.2015. 3. The respondent thereafter filed a claim under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’), claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband. 4. The claim was contested by the appellant, who denied the existence of any employer-employee relationship with the deceased. It was specifically pleaded that the deceased had never worked with the appellant and that there was no basis for the allegation that he was receiving any salary from the appellant. The appellant also denied any role in the incident leading to the death of the deceased. 5. The learned Commissioner framed issues with respect to the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the appellant, whether the accident had occurred during the course of employment and the relief to which the respondent was entitled. 6. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner returned findings in favour of the respondent and held the appellant liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,73,880/-, along with interest and penalty of Rs.4,36,940/-. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the present appeal came to be filed on 18.10.2023, nearly six years after the passing of the Award. The appellant has consequently filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay deserves to 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 21/08/2026 at 11:49:41 be condoned on account of the circumstances set out in the application. It is submitted that the appellant had studied only up to the 8th grade, was not conversant with legal procedure, had no means to pay the court fee and did not have the benefit of legal advice. It is further submitted that the appellant did not have the case file or certified copy of the Award and eventually approached the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee for filing the appeal. The explanation furnished by the appellant, however, does not satisfactorily account for the prolonged delay in approaching this Court. The Award was passed on 17.10.2017, whereas the present appeal was filed only on 18.10.2023. The explanation that the appellant was not conversant with legal procedure or did not have legal assistance, without any further explanation accounting for the entire intervening period, cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning such an inordinate delay. More importantly, the subsequent conduct of the appellant demonstrates that he was conscious of the Award and the liability arising therefrom much prior to the filing of the present appeal. The respondent had already initiated proceedings before this Court for enforcement of the Award, in which the appellant had appeared and participated. The record also reflects that the appellant had filed an affidavit of his assets, income and expenditure in the said proceedings on 17.10.2019. 9. Thereafter, in the proceedings arising out of non-compliance with the Award, vide order dated 01.06.2023, the appellant undertook before this Court to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent within one week and to pay the remaining principal amount of Rs.6,73,880/- in monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- commencing from July 2023. The said undertaking was accepted by the Court. The appellant did not, however, 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 21/08/2026 at 11:49:41 comply with the undertaking. Vide order dated 25.07.2023, this Court recorded the non-compliance and, during the course of the proceedings, the appellant paid Rs.20,000/- to the respondent in cash, which payment was acknowledged by her. The appellant thereafter undertook to deposit the balance Rs.30,000/- and further undertook to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- by 25.08.2023 and the monthly instalment of Rs.50,000/- for August 2023 by 05.08.2023. 10. Thus from above it is clear that the appellant was not only aware of the Award but had, on more than one occasion, participated in proceedings concerning its enforcement and had consciously undertaken before this Court to satisfy the amount awarded. The said conduct is wholly relevant while considering the explanation now furnished for the delay in challenging the very same Award. 11. In these circumstances, this Court is unable to find sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The application seeking condonation of delay is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. Even otherwise, on merits, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 30 of the Act. The principal challenge raised by the appellant is that there was no employer- employee relationship between the deceased and the appellant and that the learned Commissioner erred in holding otherwise. The aforesaid contentions, however, were specifically raised before the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner considered the evidence led by both sides and returned findings on the existence of an employer-employee relationship as well as the connection between the death of the deceased and his employment. The learned Commissioner noticed, inter alia, the evidence 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 21/08/2026 at 11:49:41 led by the respondent and the cross-examination of the appellant. The appellant's own evidence was considered in relation to his practice of engaging drivers and helpers for vehicles hired for his work. The learned Commissioner thereafter concluded that the circumstances on record established the requisite connection between the employment and the death of the deceased. 13. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the aforesaid findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The challenge essentially seeks a re-appreciation of the evidence and substitution of the factual findings returned by the learned Commissioner with another possible view of the evidence. 14. An appeal under Section 30 of the Act is maintainable only upon the involvement of a substantial question of law. The jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to re-appreciating evidence merely because the appellant seeks to challenge findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner upon appreciation of the material placed before him. 15. In the present case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The findings returned by the learned Commissioner are findings based upon appreciation of the evidence and the appellant has not demonstrated any perversity or patent error of law warranting interference by this Court. 16. The appeal, therefore, does not merit consideration even on merits. 17. Accordingly, C.M. No. 58447/2023 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal is also dismissed, both on the ground of limitation and on merits. 18. The appellant shall pay the remaining amount payable under 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 21/08/2026 at 11:49:41 Award, after giving due adjustment for any amount already paid or deposited, within a period of three weeks from today. 19. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J AUGUST 14, 2026 kb 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 21/08/2026 at 11:49:41