The Rajasthan High Court has confirmed the decision of a Tribunal under the Employees Compensation Act, granting compensation to a daily wage worker who suffered serious injuries during his job, even though his name was missing from the employer’s official records.
The Court, led by Justice Arun Monga, emphasized that in many industries, it is a common practice not to include casual or daily wage workers in formal employment documents such as the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Register or attendance sheets.
“The learned Tribunal's reasoning regarding the non-inclusion of the respondent's name in the wage and attendance registers is sound. It is a common industrial practice that casual or daily wage workers are often not reflected in formal employment records,” the Court stated.
Read also: Kerala High Court: Clear Divide Between Residential and Commercial Use Difficult Amid Urban Growth
The case involved an appeal filed by Karnawat Marbles against a Tribunal’s decision which awarded compensation to the injured worker, Sohan Singh. The employer argued that Sohan Singh was never their employee and had only visited the workplace to meet someone, during which he allegedly injured himself due to his own negligence.
Sohan Singh, however, claimed he worked as a machine operator at the company and that he got injured while on duty. The injury was severe—his fingers were amputated—resulting in complete incapacity for work.
Since Sohan Singh's name was not found in the ESI register or attendance log, the employer questioned the validity of the compensation claim. They also pointed out that the worker had no formal appointment letter, salary slips, or documentary evidence of employment.
But the Tribunal, whose findings were later supported by the High Court, relied on other solid evidence. These included the police report, medical records, disability certificate, and statements of witnesses. These collectively confirmed that the injury had taken place at the employer’s premises while the worker was engaged in his duties.
“All other evidence such as medical records confirming injuries, the police report, and the disability certificate support the worker’s version. These were rightly accepted by the Tribunal,” the Court said.
The Court noted that insisting on the presence of formal documents in such cases would defeat the very purpose of labour welfare laws. It appreciated the Tribunal’s observation that a lack of records does not automatically mean a person was not employed, especially in the case of daily wage or informal workers.
In this case, the High Court held that the employer's defense—that no such worker was on their rolls—was unsubstantiated and insufficient to deny compensation.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal by Karnawat Marbles, thereby confirming the compensation awarded to Sohan Singh.
“The appellant’s assertion that no such workers were employed is an unsubstantiated defense,” the Court concluded.
Title: Karnawat Marbles v Sohan Singh
