1 2025:CGHC:45053 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 299 of 2023 Manager, Sourabh Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. Kanhera Urla Industrial Area Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Its General Manager, Navratan Singh, S/o Late Prayag Singh Aged About 43 Years, R/o 190, Chhota Ashok Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Rohit Kumar S/o Shri Ram Sagar, R/o Through House No. 348 Of Munnalal Verma, Ward No. 29, Gajinagar, Birgaon, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. AD Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent : None present. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 03.9.2025 1. Heard. 2. The appellant/non-applicant has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1923’) challenging order dated 03.11.2022 passed by Labour Court No.1, Raipur (CG) in Case No.03/E.C.Act/2019/non-fatal, whereby award of Rs.4,16,467/- along with 12% interest has been passed in favour of the respondent/claimant and against the appellant/non-applicant/employer. (For convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the Court below) BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.04 17:30:05 +0530 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the applicant/respondent was working as a mechanic fitter in the institute of the appellant/non-applicant since 07.3.2017. On 24.8.2017 on the instruction of the non-applicant, while performing duty in the institute, the applicant met with an accident and thumb of his right hand got cut in the said incident. He was admitted in the hospital. At the time of the accident, the applicant was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.17000/- per month. After the said accident, the applicant’s earning capacity has decreased by 40%. Since the non-applicant had not paid the compensation to the applicant for his lost earning capacity, being the employee of the non-applicant, the applicant filed application under Section 22 of the Act, 1923 against employer/non-applicant for grant of compensation. 4. The non-applicant filed his reply, in which, he denied the allegations levelled against him and his liability also. 5. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Labour Court allowed the claim application filed by the applicant and granted compensation in favour of him to the tune of Rs.4,16,467/-. It also granted interest @ 12% per annum on aforesaid amount from the date of incident with the condition that, if the same is not paid within a period of 45 days. The learned Labour Court also directed the non-applicant to deposit Rs.2,08,234/- as penalty in the Court within 45 days from the date of decision of the court. Being aggrieved from aforesaid award, instant appeal has been preferred by the non-applicant/employer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/non-applicant submits that impugned award has been passed without providing due opportunity to adduce evidence to the non-applicant/employer, hence, the impugned award is 3 perverse and illegal. Therefore, it is prayed that this appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial question of law. 7. The non-applicant has filed certified copy of the order sheets of the concerned Labour Court. Perusal of the those order sheets shows that the applicant’s evidence was closed on 05.9.2022, thereafter case was fixed for non-applicant’s/appellant’s evidence on 15.9.2022, 29.9.2022 and 18.10.22. Despite granting three opportunities, the non-applicant/appellant again sought time to adduce evidence, which was granted by the Court by imposing cost of Rs.500/- and it was specifically ordered that he has been granted last opportunity to adduce his witnesses and case was posted for non-applicant’s evidence on 02.11.2022. Despite specific instructions, non-applicant/ appellant did not produce his witnesses, therefore, his opportunity was closed and after hearing the parties, impugned award has been passed by the Labour court. Thus, total 04 opportunities were granted to the non-applicant/ appellant to examine his witnesses, but, even after specific direction, he failed to produce his witnesses. Having considered aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that due opportunity to adduce evidence was not granted to the non- applicant/appellant herein. Hence, contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable. 8. On due consideration, I do not find any question of law to be involved in the instant appeal, hence the appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini