$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010818092024 + FAO 362/2024 &CM APPL. 67367/2024, CM APPL. 64505/2025 SHRI KRISHAN .....Appellant Through: Ms. E.R. Sumathy and Mr. Harsh, Advocates versus SMT. UMDA DEVI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.R. Kamat, Advocate, Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Ms. Purnima Jain and Ms. Shivpa Taneja, Advocates for respondent no. 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 12.08.2026 1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the appellant seeks to assail the order dated 28.03.2024, vide which the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation Act allowed the claim application and awarded compensation alongwith interest and penalty. 2. Briefly stated, the claim petition came to be filed before the learned Commissioner alleging that late Sh. Ram Lakhan Mahto @ Ram Lakhan Singh(hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”)was employed with the appellant as a mason and, while working at the appellant’s house, fell from the stairs and sustained injuries. The appellant denied the employer- employee relationship and contended that the deceased had never worked with him. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:32:33 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that while passing the impugned order, the learned Commissioner erred in not appreciating that the claimants had failed to establish the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased. It is next contended that the deceased was living in the neighbourhood and, therefore, could not have been employed by the appellant. Thirdly, it is stated that the claim petition was filed nearly three years after the incident and was, therefore, barred by limitation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the mandatory requirement under Section 30(1) of the Act, which requires the appellant to deposit the amount payable under the order before preferring an appeal. He further submits that the respondent has also filed a contempt petition in this regard. 5. Before proceeding further, this Court takes note of the limited scope of interference under Section 30 of the Act. It is well settled that an appeal under Section 30 lies only on a substantial question of law and that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner are not to be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. In this regard, reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in “North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha1” and “Golla Rajanna &Ors. v. Divisional Manager &Anr.2”. 6. Coming to the first contention that the employer-employee relationship was not proved, it may be noted that the claim application was 1(2019) 11 SCC 514 2(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 17/08/2026 at 11:32:33 filed in the context of the death of the deceased with the averment that while being employed as a mason at the house of the appellant, he fell from the stairs on 16.12.2020 at about 12:30 P.M. He was thereafter taken to RML Hospital, where he subsequently expired during treatment on 19.12.2020. The claimants had placed on record the FIR registered in respect of the incident, MLC No.230892/20, death report and PMR. The FIR and other contemporaneous records establish that the incident had occurred at the house of the appellant. The learned Commissioner also considered the evidence of Smt. Umda Devi/CW-1 and Sh. Sharwan Kumar Singh/CW-2 and, upon appreciation of the material on record, returned a finding that the deceased was employed by the appellant and had sustained injuries while on duty. 7. The learned Commissioner, after considering the FIR, MLC, death report, PMR and the oral evidence, has returned a finding on the employer- employee relationship. Such a finding, being essentially a finding of fact, does not warrant interference in the present appeal in the absence of perversity or any substantial question of law. The fact that the deceased was residing in the neighbourhood of the appellant’s house, by itself, has no bearing on the question of whether he was employed by the appellant. 8. Insofar as the contention regarding limitation is concerned, it is noted that the appellant had not raised any objection in the written statement that the claim was time barred. Even otherwise, the claimants had filed an application seeking condonation of delay, wherein reasons including the intervening COVID-19 pandemic and the circumstances of claimant No.1 were set out. The learned Commissioner has condoned the delay. No 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 17/08/2026 at 11:32:33 perversity or error of law has been demonstrated in the said exercise so as to warrant interference under Section 30 of the Act. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary ground that the appellant has not deposited the amount payable under the impugned order, which is a pre-requisite for maintaining an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act. The statutory requirement having not been complied with, the present appeal is not maintainable. 10. Even otherwise, this Court has considered the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant on merits and finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. The penalty amount deposited by the appellant before the learned Commissioner be released to the claimants. The remaining amount shall be paid to the claimants within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realization. 12. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Commissioner. 13. The appeal, along with pending applications, is disposed of accordingly. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J AUGUST 12, 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 17/08/2026 at 11:32:33