1 2026:CGHC:20901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 582 of 2020 Director, International Tractor Limited Dipo Bilaspur (Sonalika Tractor) Sakri Battalion Salampur, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Phuleshwari Nirmalkar W/o Late Pradeep Nirmalkar R/o Bhagat Singh Ajad Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shivam Nirmalkar S/o Late Pradeep Nirmalkar R/o Bhagat Singh Ajad Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aman Nirmalkar S/o Late Pradeep Nirmalkar R/o Bhagat Singh Ajad Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jhuniya Bai W/o Ramji Nirmalkar R/o Bhagat Singh Ajad Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.05.06 17:22:19 +0530 2 5 - Ramji Nirmalkar S/o Shriram Nirmalkar R/o Bhagat Singh Ajad Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Director Vindhyachal Pandey, Lovely Tractors (Sonalika), Near Gandhi Chowk Ambikapur, Tahsil And District Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Rayal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Office Rama Trade Center, First Floor, Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 233 of 2020 Lovely Tractors (Sonalika) Through Its Director - Vindhyachal Pandey, S/o Dindu Pandey, Aged About 66 Years, Near Gandhi Chowk, Ambikapur, Tehsil And District - Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. (Non - Applicant No. 2) ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Phuleshwari Nirmalkar W/o Late Pradeep Nirmalkar Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhagat Singh Azad Nagar, Tifra, Thana - Sirgitti, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shivam Nirmalkar S/o Late Pradeep Nirmalkar, R/o Bhagat Singh Azad Nagar, Tifra, Thana - Sirgitti, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 3 - Aman Nirmalkar S/o Late Pradeep Nirmalkar, R/o Bhagat Singh Azad Nagar, Tifra, Thana - Sirgitti, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jhuniya Bai W/o Ramji Nirmalkar, R/o Bhagat Singh Azad Nagar, Tifra, Thana - Sirgitti, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ramji Nirmalkar, S/o Shri Ram Nirmalkar, R/o Bhagat Singh Azad Nagar, Tifra, Thana - Sirgitti, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Applicants) 6 - International Tractor Limited Depot - Bilaspur (Sonalika Tractor) Through Its Director, Sakri, Batallian Salampur, Thana - Chakarbhata, Tehsil Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Non - Applicant No. 1) 7 - Royal Sundram Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., Office At - Rama Trade Center, First Floor, Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Non - Applicant No. 3) …. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant In MAC No. 582/2020 In MAC No. 233/2020 : : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.7/ Insurance Company : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 05/05/2026 1. Since both the appeals have been arising out of a common award, they are being heard and decided by this judgment. 2. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants/ Non- applicant No.1 & 2 under Section 30 of the Employee’s 4 Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act, 1923') against the order/award dated 06/12/2019 passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in case No. 06/E.C. Act/2014/Fatal, whereby the claim application filed by the claimants under Section 10 of the Act, 1923 has been allowed. 3. MAC No.582 of 2020 is not admitted, whereas MAC No.233 of 2020 has been admitted by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2020 on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether finding of the Commissioner of Employee's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur holding that the deceased Pradeep Nirmalkar was also the employee of Non-Applicant No.2 (Appellant) even in absence of cogent and reliable evidence, is perverse? 2. Whether finding of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur imposing penalty upon Non-applicant No.2 along with Non- applicant No.1 to the extent of 50% of the award under appeal, i.e., Rs.2,91,431/- without complying with the mandatory provisions prescribed under proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, is perverse?” 4. Since MAC No. 582 of 2020 arises out of the same impugned award and involves identical facts and grounds as those in MAC No. 233 of 2020, it is also admitted on the same substantial questions of law as framed hereinabove in MAC No. 233 of 2020. 5 5. Facts of the case are that the claimants filed the claim application for grant of compensation pleading inter alia, that applicant No. 1 is the widow, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the children, and applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of Pradeep Nirmalkar (since deceased), all of whom were dependent on his income. It is stated that the deceased was employed under the non-applicants as a driver in a tractor agency and used to transport sold tractor engines between Bilaspur and Ambikapur, earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. On 30.10.2013, while driving a tractor engine from Ambikapur to Bilaspur in the course of his employment, the vehicle met with an accident near Lara Puta Ghat due to mechanical failure (brake failure), as a result of which it turned turtle and the deceased died instantaneously after being trapped underneath. It is further alleged that the accident occurred due to excessive workload and mental pressure, as no additional driver was provided. Despite demand, no compensation was paid, hence the claim has been filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.8,31,920/-. 6. Non-applicant No. 1/ appellant in MAC No. 582/2020 has filed its reply denying the claim and stating that the deceased was not in its employment on the date of accident and was not engaged as a driver under its establishment. It is further contended that the deceased was never employed with International Tractor Limited Depot, Bilaspur, and hence, the non-applicant No. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation. Accordingly, dismissal of the claim against 6 it has been prayed for. 7. Non-applicant No. 2/ appellant in MAC No. 233/2020 has denied the employer-employee relationship with the deceased and the occurrence of the accident in the course of alleged employment. It is stated that its agency is situated at Ambikapur and the deceased was a resident of Bilaspur, making the alleged engagement improbable. It is further contended that since the deceased was not its employee, no liability for compensation arises against it, and dismissal of the claim has been sought. 8. Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company has also denied the entire claim, including employment, wages, accident particulars, and dependency of the claimants. It is further contended that the burden of proving the claim lies upon the claimants and no documentary evidence has been produced regarding employment, income, or jurisdiction. It is also stated that the alleged accident and circumstances are disputed and the claim is not maintainable against it. Accordingly, dismissal of the claim petition has been prayed for. 9. The Labour Court on the basis of pleadings and material available on record framed as many as 9 issues for adjudication of the claim petition. The witnesses have been examined by the claimants and respondents. The Labour Court finally allowed the claim case holding that the deceased was a workman under the employment of appellants herein and died in the course of 7 employment arising out of an accident. The Court further determined the age and income of the deceased, assessed the dependency of the claimants, and computed the compensation accordingly. It also held that the insurance policy was valid and there was no breach of policy conditions, thereby fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to indemnify the employer and also imposed statutory penalty and interest upon non-applicants No. 1 and 2 (appellants in both the appeals) for failure to comply with the statutory obligation and for not depositing compensation within time. Aggrieved by the said award, the non-applicants No.1 & 2/ appellants herein have preferred the present appeals. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MAC No. 582/ 2020 submits that the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court is illegal, contrary to law and suffers from material irregularity. He submits that the deceased was not an employee of the appellant herein, rather the vehicle was subsequently sold and was under the control of respondent No.6 i.e. the Director, Lovely Tractors (Sonalika), Ambikapur, as is evident from the invoice and documents on record including Ex. D/1 and Ex. D/2. He further submits that the learned Labour Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by respondent No. 6, which clearly indicated employment of the deceased under respondent No. 6. He would contend that no documentary proof of income was produced by the claimants, yet compensation has been awarded along with fastening of liability and imposition of 8 penalty upon the appellant, which is contrary to law and unsustainable. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are prayed to be set aside. 11. Alongside, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MAC No. 233/2020 submits that the learned Labour Court has erred in holding that the deceased was its employee, whereas in fact there was no employer–employee relationship between the appellant and the deceased, as the deceased was exclusively working under non-applicant No.1/ International Tractor Ltd. Depot, Bilaspur, who was the actual employer and from whom salary was also being paid. He further submits that the finding of joint liability is legally unsustainable, as the Act does not contemplate two principal employers for the same employee. He would also contend that the learned Commissioner has failed to properly apply the provisions of the Act, 1923, and has wrongly fastened liability along with penalty upon the appellant without any legal basis. Accordingly, the impugned order, to the extent it holds the appellant liable, is prayed to be set aside. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 13. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Commissioner has considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and has arrived at a categorical finding that the deceased was engaged as a driver in connection 9 with the work of the non-applicants/appellants in both the appeals and the accident occurred during the course of such employment. Merely because the appellants have disputed the employer– employee relationship, the same would not render the finding perverse, particularly when the said finding is based on appreciation of evidence on record. 14. While dealing with the first substantial question of law, it is evident from the testimony of the independent witness, Sukhiram Sahu, that he along with his friend Dilip reached the place of occurrence and found that the deceased, Pradeep Nirmalkar, had taken a sold tractor engine (blue in colour) from Salampur to the showroom of Lovely Tractors, Ambikapur. However, while returning with the engine of Lovely Tractors, Ambikapur towards Kawardha, upon reaching near Taraghati, District Surajpur, the vehicle met with an accident due to brake failure, as a result of which it collided with an earthen mound on the roadside and overturned, causing the death of the deceased who was crushed underneath the tractor. 15. From the aforesaid testimony of the independent witness, it stands established that on the date of the incident, the deceased was engaged in transporting a sold tractor engine in connection with the business of the International Tractor Limited, Salampur, Bilspur, and was returning with the engine of Lovely Tractors, Ambikapur towards Kawardha, the accident occurred. The said evidence clearly supports the case that the deceased was 10 discharging duties connected with the work of both the non- applicants. This evidence, read in conjunction with the material available on record, cannot be said to be unreliable or insufficient so as to render the finding of the learned Commissioner perverse. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is answered against both the appellants. 16. The next substantial question of law relates to the finding of the learned Commissioner in imposing penalty upon Non-applicant No.2 along with Non-applicant No.1 to the extent of 50% of the awarded amount, i.e., Rs. 2,91,431/-, without complying with the mandatory provisions prescribed under proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. 17. The proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Act, 1923 reads thus :- “4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default - xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-- xxx xxx xxx 11 b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent. of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed.” xxx xxx xxx 18. The proviso to Section 4A(3) of the Act empowers the Commissioner to impose penalty where the employer, without any justification, defaults in payment of compensation within the prescribed time. In the present case, the learned Commissioner, upon appreciation of the evidence and surrounding circumstances, has found that the appellants failed to comply with their statutory duty, and accordingly imposed penalty. 19. From perusal of the record, it appears that upon receipt of the notice of the Court, both the non-applicants had duly appeared before the concerned Court and were afforded proper opportunity of hearing. They had also filed their respective replies, contested the claim petition, and participated in the proceedings by leading evidence. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the penalty has been imposed without complying with the mandatory 12 requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity as contemplated under the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act, 1923. The requirement of show cause stands substantially satisfied when the parties are aware of the proceedings, contest the claim, and are given full opportunity to put forth their defence. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the penalty has been imposed in violation of the statutory provisions is devoid of merit. 20. Further, from the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner on Issue relating to compensation, penalty and interest, it is apparent that despite the occurrence of the accident, the non- applicants No.1 and 2 failed to either deposit the compensation amount within the prescribed period or intimate the accident to the competent authority. No documentary evidence was produced by them to show compliance with the statutory requirement within 30 days from the date of accident. The learned Commissioner, upon appreciation of the material on record and relying upon settled legal principles, has rightly held that such failure attracts imposition of penalty and interest under the provisions of the Act, 1923. 21. Thus the factual findings, which are based on evidence and are neither arbitrary nor unsupported by record, the imposition of penalty upon non-applicants No.1 and 2 cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is also answered against the appellants. 13 22. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Labour Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and has correctly adjudicated all the issues including those relating to age and income of the deceased, dependency of the claimants, validity of insurance coverage, jurisdiction, and liability of the parties. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion and the findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Commissioner has duly appreciated the evidence on record and has passed a well-reasoned and legally sustainable award. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity is found in the impugned award so as to warrant interference by this Court under Section 30 of the Act, 1923. Thus, the impugned award does not call for any interference. Both the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents/claimants. 24. Accordingly, both the appeals, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed and the award dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) is affirmed. 25. Consequently, the interim orders passed earlier in both the appeals stand vacated. 26. The learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur is requested to ensure make payment of 14 the entire compensation amount as also the amount of penalty to the claimants within a period of 60 days, if the same has not been made till date, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, if any, penalty deposited by the appellant(s), pursuant to the order of this Court, the same be adjusted accordingly. 27. Registry is directed to sent back the record of the learned Labour Court forthwith. 28. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar