- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573 MFA No. 22492 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22492 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. JADEPPA @ JADAGAPPA MURAKUMBI, AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O. MUDALGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHIVABASU S/O. BALAPPA HANDIGUND, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. & DRIVER, R/O. MUDALGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2012, PASSED IN W.C.A. NO.56/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-1, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573 MFA No. 22492 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is present. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the “the Labour Commissioner”), did not consider the evidence produced by the appellant. Based on the criminal Court records, he rejected the application. Therefore, on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, claimants have challenged said order. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that he was driver, driving the tractor and trailers belonging to respondent No.1. On the date of incident, he was working under respondent No.1. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation, since there - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573 MFA No. 22492 of 2012 exists relationship of employer and employee between himself and respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for appellant further submits that the Labour Commissioner, after recording the evidence of the appellant and reconsidering the evidence and materials placed on record, held that the appellant failed to prove that he was a laborer working under respondent No.1. There was no relationship between employer and employee between respondent No.1 and the appellant. On that ground, the Labour Commissioner rejected the application of appellant’s claiming compensation. Substantial question of law involved in this case and prayed to admit the appeal. 6. I have perused the records i.e. copy of the impugned order and grounds of appeal. 7. It appears that the appellant filed a complaint regarding the incident and the said complaint was registered at Mudalgi Police station. Thereafter, the appellant filed private complaint No.176/2007 in JMFC - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573 MFA No. 22492 of 2012 Court, Gokak. The said case was referred to police for investigation. Police submitted ‘B’ false report. On that basis the Labour Commissioner has disposed of the matter. 8. The petitioner got examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked 17 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-17. To rebut the said evidence respondent No.1, the alleged employer got examined himself as RW-1. Upon appreciating the evidence, the Labour Commissioner observed that the appellant was not at all serving as a driver of the tractor and trailer belonging to respondent No.1. It was also held that the appellant had not suffered any injuries while working with respondent No.1. The said material facts has to be proved by employee to claim compensation. 9. It appears that the appellant filed a private complaint in the JMFC Mudalagi Court, which was referred to the Police for investigation. After conducting an enquiry, the Police submitted a ‘B’ false report. Considering the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4573 MFA No. 22492 of 2012 materials available on record, the Labour Commissioner rejected the claim petition with valid reasons. 10. Based on the materials available on record, the Labour Commissioner dismissed the claim petition. There is no substantial question of law to admit the appeal. The grounds of the appeal are insufficient to admit the appeal to reconsider the order of Labour Commissioner; main points i.e., employee and employer relationship itself was not proved by the claimant. He was also failed to prove that during the course of employment he sustained injuries. These are facts of the case, which were not proved by the appellant. Under these circumstances, appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE RHR /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1