34-FA-533-2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 533 OF 2016. Shri. Dilip Sahadev Khot ...Appellant. Versus Shri. Gunda Kallappa Magdum And Anr. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Gajanan Mahadev Savagave for the Appellant. Adv. Jayant J Bardeskar, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : March 13, 2025. P. C. : 1. The First Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 12th May, 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Workers Compensation, Kolhapur in W.C. Application No. 33/C/11/2010, dismissing the Application filed by the Appellant/Claimant for compensation. 2. The case of the Applicant was that on 17th November, 2008 the Applicant along with others had come to the adjoining field for purpose of cultivation. The Respondent’s land was situated adjoining to the field and he asked the Applicant to climb the coconut tree and remove the coconuts. Accordingly, the Applicant climbed the coconut tree and fell while removing the coconuts, as a result of which he sustained spine injuries and suffered permanent disability of about Shubham Talle 1 of 5 TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.03.19 13:44:18 +0530 34-FA-533-2016.doc 90%. 3. The Claim came to be resisted by the Respondents contending that there is no employer-employee relationship between the Applicant and the Claimants and it is Applicant’s own case that he had come for work of cultivation of adjoining field. It was further contended that the Respondents have not asked the Applicant to remove the coconuts from coconut tree and therefore they are not liable for any compensation to be paid for alleged accident. 4. The parties led evidence and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation framed the necessary issue as regards the employer employee relationship and answered the same in the negative. The Commissioner considered the evidence on record and observed the case of the Applicant was that on the fateful day he had come to the adjoining field for the purpose of cultivation and the Respondents were not known to the Applicant. The Commissioner further noted that the Applicants have not deposed as to the consideration agreed between the parties for purpose of the alleged work. The Commissioner therefore held that there is no employer- employee relationship and dismissed the Application. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant would submit that the Applicant has deposed that on the fateful day when he had come to the adjoining field for the purpose of cultivation, the Shubham Talle 2 of 5 34-FA-533-2016.doc Respondent No. 2 has specifically asked him to remove coconut from coconut tree and abiding to the said request the Applicant climbed upon the coconut tree and fell while removing coconuts. He submits that in the cross examination there is nothing brought on record to demolish the case of the Applicant. He would further submit that the work for which the Applicant was employed would fall within the Schedule(II) as employment for the purpose of tapping of palm trees, for felling or logging of trees which is also listed in Schedule (II). 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent would point out that the Commissioner has rightly taken into consideration the fact that there is no employer employee relationship and merely because FIR came to be lodged it cannot be accepted that the accident has arisen out of course of the employment. He would further submit that infact subsequently the Respondents had lodged complaint against the Applicant. 7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 8. In the present case, the Applicant has deposed that on 17th November, 2018 he had come to the adjoining field for purpose of cultivation and at that time the Respondent No. 2 had asked him to remove coconuts from the coconut tree. The Applicants has not deposed that there was an oral arrangement between the parties for purpose of carrying out the work there was some compensation Shubham Talle 3 of 5 34-FA-533-2016.doc offered. All that is deposed is that on the said date, the Respondent No. 2 had asked the Applicant to remove coconut from the coconut trees. Thus from the Applicants own deposition it is not established that there was any contract of employment casual or otherwise between the parties. Similarly the evidence of PW-2 is that he along with the Applicant and others had gone to the adjoining field for purpose of cultivation and the Applicant climbed upon the coconut tree and fell while removing the coconuts. PW-2 has infact not supported the case of the Applicant as he has not stated that the Applicant had climbed the coconut tree upon an oral arrangement arrived at between the Applicant and Respondents. The witness infact would support the case of the Respondents that the Applicant had climbed the coconut tree without any authority from Respondents and the accident has occurred. 9. For the purpose of establishing the employer-employee relationship even casual there has to be some evidence on record which is missing in the present case. The Commissioner has rightly considered the evidence on record and has come to finding that there is no employer-employee relationship. The findings are infact findings of fact and no substantial question of law arises in the present case which is mandatory requirement for filing of the Appeal under the Employees Compensation Act. Shubham Talle 4 of 5 34-FA-533-2016.doc 10. Resultantly, the First Appeal stands dismissed. 11. In view of the disposal of First Appeal, nothing survives for consideration in the pending Civil/Interim Applications and the same stand disposed of. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Shubham Talle 5 of 5