2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued two aspects.
The first aspect which is argued is that no relationship of employer and
employee was proved between the respondent no. 1 herein and the
FAO No. 353/2016 Page 1 of 5
respondent no. 2 herein. Respondent no. 2 herein was the respondent
no. 1 before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner and he was
impleaded as the employer and the owner of the vehicle. Respondent
no. 1 herein was the claimant before the Employee’s Compensation
3. With respect to the employment of the driver on a truck,
normally we do not find employment letters or employment contracts.
Courts as also the Commissioners under the Act have to arrive at a
finding as per the evidence which is led on record and the
Commissioner as also this Court, depending on facts of a case, can
hold existence of relationship of employer and employee if the vehicle
is not found to be stolen by the person who was found driving the
vehicle at the time of the accident. Such finding arising out of evidence
does not raise any substantial question of law under Section 30 of the
Employee’s Compensation Act for this Court to interfere. It is,
therefore, held that the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner has
rightly decided the existence of relationship of employer and employee
between the present respondents.
Source: Indian Kanoon