Himachal Pradesh High Court
FAO/153/2015 on 15 October 2026
1 2026:HHC:46178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
FAO (MVA) No. 153 of 2015
Decided on: 15.10.2026
Executive Engineer & anr.
… Appellants
Versus
Kartaru
…Respondent
_____________________________ ______________
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
___________________________________________________
For the Appellants:
Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G.
For the Respondent :
Mr. Jia Lal, Advocate vice Mr.
G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge
(oral)
Appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the award dated 24.05.2014, passed by the Court of the learned Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act [Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.], (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Commissioner’), in
2 2026:HHC:46178
WC Petition No. 6 of 2011, titled as, ‘Smt. Kartaru Devi versus Executive Engineer & anr.’.
2.
By way of award dated 24.05.2014, the learned Commissioner has allowed the petition, filed by respondent Kartaru Devi, by awarding a sum of Rs.
2,78,000, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of respondent Kartaru Devi, from the date of filing of the petition, till realization of the entire amount.
3.
Parties to the lis are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Commissioner.
4.
Brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, may be summed up, as under:
Petitioner Kartaru Devi has filed the petition under the provisions of the Act, seeking the amount of compensation, on account of death of her husband Khem Chand, during the course of his employment, with the respondents.
4.1
Death of Khem Chand had taken place on
22.3.2004, due to stomach pain, when, he was working
3 2026:HHC:46178
with the respondents. He was admitted to the hospital and expired on 23.3.2004 at 1:50 AM.
5.
When, put to notice, the petition has been contested by the respondents by asserting that Khem Chand was engaged as work charge mate, and was engaged on annual repair and maintenance work of Nalsar Gagal road on 22.3.2004 and left the work without giving information, due to his illness and at 1:00 PM was rushed to Zonal Hospital, Mandi for treatment, where, he expired, due to upper GI bleed on 23.3.2004 at 1:50 AM.
5.1
It is the further stand of the appellants that the injury was not sustained by him, during the course of employment. However, it has been admitted that Khem Chand was appointed as work charge mate on 6.3.1986
and joined his duty on 12.3.1986. He has attained the age of 53 years, 187 days till the death of his death, i.e.
on 23.3.2004. His monthly wages have been mentioned as Rs. 7624/-.
4 2026:HHC:46178
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Commissiner on 13.2.2012.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether late Khem Chand was workman within the meaning of the Employees Compensation Act, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether late Khem Chand developed stomach ache during the course of employment, as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the applicant being legal heir of late Khem Chand, is entitled for compensation, as alleged? OPP
4. Whether late Khem Chand died natural death, as alleged? OPR
5. Relief.
7. Thereafter, the parties were directed to adduce evidence. After closure of the evidence, the learned Commissioner has allowed the petition, by holding that the death has been caused, during the course of employment.
8. These findings have been assailed by way of present appeal, which was admitted by this Court, on 16.5.2015 on the following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether the findings delivered by learned Commissioner that deceased had died during the course of employment due to disease is correct in view of contrary medical certificate/report and other evidence so available on record?
5 2026:HHC:46178
2. Whether learned Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the award by not correctly applying his facts and by holding the deceased died during the course of his employment?
3. Whether findings arrived by learned Commissioner is peruse and is against the law and facts on record? 4 Whether learned Commissioner can pass an award ignoring the relevant facts as provided under the facts?
9. Arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, as well as, the learned counsel representing the respondent heard.
10. So far as the substantial question of law No. 1 is concerned, from the very stand of the respondents in their reply, it has been proved that Khem Chand was appointed as work charge mate on 6.3.1986 and he joined the duties on 12.3.1986. Meaning thereby, he was on the rolls of respondents, as such, the respondent, in the present case, has proved the employee-employer relationship.
11. So far as the substantial questions of law Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General could not point out as to how the Commissioner was not having the jurisdiction, and which of the
6 2026:HHC:46178 relevant facts were ignored by the learned Commissioner while deciding the claim petition.
12. Consequently, the substantial questions of law, so framed, are decided against the appellants.
13. In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
14. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 15.10.2026 Judge Kalpana