JUDGMENT : 1. Instant appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923,(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) lays challenge to order dated 30.6.2012, passed by learned Commissioner, Exercising Powers under Employees Compensation Act in Case No. 11-12 of 11/08, whereby court below while allowing claim petition having been filed by respondent/petitioner under Section 22 of the Act, held the appellants/employers (hereinafter referred to as ‘employer’) liable to pay compensation to the workman to the tune of Rs.3,50,880/- along with simple interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 4.1.2007 till the deposit/payment of the whole amount of compensation. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that claimant claiming himself to be an employee of the employer, filed petition under Section 22 of the Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lac on account of injuries suffered by him during his employment in the shop being run by employer in the name of Shandil Furniture House, Kasumpti, Shimla. Workman alleged that on 4.1.2007, while he was on duty and was doing wood polishing work in the shop, at about 2.15 P.M. one Kashmiri Coolie namely Yusuf came with LPG Gas Cylinder. He alleged that above-named coolie was known to the owner of the shop and usually used to come to the shop of employer with LPG cylinder. He alleged that suddenly fire broke out in the shop on account of leakage of LPG cylinder brought by above-named coolie and as a consequence of which, he got engulfed in fire and his body burnt to the extent of more than 40%. He alleged that he was taken to IGMC Hospital for treatment and he remained in hospital for more than 10 months. Workman also claimed that in the alleged accident, he lost his both hands as the fingers of the hands were completely burnt. He also alleged that beside above injuries, his eye sight also got damaged to the extent of 60%. He claimed that on account of injuries, he became permanently disabled to the extent of 100%. Claimant stated before the court below that he has spent sum of Rs. 60,000/- on his treatment which was arranged by his wife by raising loan from some other person. He also stated before court below that his wife made representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, whereby medical bills to the tune of Rs.30,000/- were reimbursed. Claimant stated before the court below that he has spent sum of Rs. 60,000/- on his treatment which was arranged by his wife by raising loan from some other person. He also stated before court below that his wife made representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, whereby medical bills to the tune of Rs.30,000/- were reimbursed. Workman also stated in his petition that respondent/employer provided little help of Rs.7,000/- to him. 3. Aforesaid claim put-forth by workman came to be hotly contested and resisted by employer, who by way of reply, besides raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability, also denied employment, if any, given by him to the workman. Employer specifically stated in the reply that neither he employed workman, as claimed by him nor he is proprietor of M/s Shandil Furniture House. Employer claimed that workman has falsely claimed that he was getting salary of Rs.4200/- per month. He also stated that he had not booked any LPG cylinder nor had placed any order for supply of LPG Cylinder to Sh. Yusuf. While denying that Sh. Yusuf was usual visitor to shop with LPG Cylinder, employer stated that he was not present in the shop. Factum with regard to workman’s having suffered 40% burn injury on his body was also denied by the employer. He claimed that injuries, if any, suffered by workman on his body cannot be attributed to him but to the person namely Sh. Yusuf. He also disputed genuineness of disability certificate adduced on record by the workman. While admitting factum with regard to lodging of FIR bearing No.14, dated 4.1.2007, employer claimed that fire in question had taken place due to the negligence of Yusuf and workman Asha Ram and as such, he cannot be burdened with the liability to pay compensation, if any, to the workman. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, following issues were framed by court below on 20.02.2009:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, as sought? OPP 2. Whether the petition as filed lacks material and better particulars? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner was never employed as a workman by the respondent? OPR 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable due to its own acts, deeds, conduct, lapses and omissions? OPR 5. Relief 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, as sought? OPP 2. Whether the petition as filed lacks material and better particulars? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner was never employed as a workman by the respondent? OPR 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable due to its own acts, deeds, conduct, lapses and omissions? OPR 5. Relief 4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, as well as evidence led on record by respective parties, court below vide order dated 30.06.2012, allowed the petition filed by workman and held employer liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,880/-, as has been taken note hereinabove. In the aforesaid background, employer has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash the order granting compensation in favour of workman. 5. Before proceeding to decide the case, it may be noticed that initially petition was filed against original owner of the shop, Balak Ram, who later on expired and present appellants being his LRs came to be impleaded on his place and as such, appellants are being referred to as ‘employer’. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds it difficult to agree with Mr. B.C. Verma, learned counsel representing the employer that the workman failed to establish on record employer-employee relationship, if any, inter se parties, rather evidence adduced on record by respective parties clearly reveals that on the date of alleged incident, workman was in active employment of the employer. Though, in the case at hand, attempt has been made by employer to carve out a case that neither he employed the workman in his shop nor he is owner of the shop, but if the statements of claimant witnesses are read in their entirety, they clearly establish on record that the workman was doing wood polishing work in the shop of employer and he was being paid monthly salary of Rs. 4200/- by the employer. 7. PW-1 Sh. Bhoop Ram, deposed that the workman Asha Ram is known to him for the last so many years and he is his neighbourer. He deposed that Asha Ram was Carpenter at Shandil Furniture House, Kasumpti and he used to receive Rs.4200/- per month as salary. 4200/- by the employer. 7. PW-1 Sh. Bhoop Ram, deposed that the workman Asha Ram is known to him for the last so many years and he is his neighbourer. He deposed that Asha Ram was Carpenter at Shandil Furniture House, Kasumpti and he used to receive Rs.4200/- per month as salary. He categorically deposed that on 4.1.2007, fire broke in Shandil Furniture on account of leakage of gas from Cylinder, as a consequence of which, hand, face, head and other parts of body of Asha Ram got burnt completely. He also deposed that now Asha Ram is not able to do any work. He also deposed that family of Asha Ram is dependent upon him. In his cross-examination, though this witness admitted that he had not seen any record of employment of workman with the employer, but cross-examination conducted upon this witness nowhere suggests that opposite party was able to shatter his testimony, wherein he categorically deposed the factum with regard to employment of workman in the shop of employers. This witness specifically denied suggestion put to him that Asha Ram was not working in Shandil Furniture House and was not earning Rs. 4200/- per month. Interestingly, at no point of time, any suggestion ever came to put to this witness that employer is/was not the owner of the shop and the shop was not being run by him. 8. PW-2, Sh. Mohan Singh, also deposed that Asha Ram is his neighbourer and he was carpenter and used to do polishing etc. at Shandil Furniture House on monthly wages of Rs.4200/- per month. He also deposed that on 4.1.2007, fire broke out in Shandil Furniture House and Asha Ram suffered burn injuries and now he is not in a position to do any work. This witness in his cross-examination stated that Shandil Furniture House is situate at road head. He also deposed that house of Asha Ram was 1 KM away from his house. Most importantly, this witness deposed that Bala Nand is proprietor of Shandil Furniture House. This witness also denied the suggestion put to him that no wood work is/was done at Shandil Furniture House and only glass furniture is there. 9. PW-3 Asha Ram, i.e. workman deposed that he is a Carpenter and used to do wood and polish work etc. at Shandil Furniture house. This witness also denied the suggestion put to him that no wood work is/was done at Shandil Furniture House and only glass furniture is there. 9. PW-3 Asha Ram, i.e. workman deposed that he is a Carpenter and used to do wood and polish work etc. at Shandil Furniture house. He testified that on 4.1.2007, at 2.15 P.M. person namely Yusuf came with a gas Cylinder in the shop while he was doing polishing work. He further deposed that Yusuf occasionally used to bring Cylinder in the shop and on that day, suddenly fire broke out in the shop on account of leakage of gas and he suffered burn injuries. He deposed that he remained under treatment for more than 10 months. He also proved on record discharge slips Ext. PW-3/A and Ext. PW-3/C. He also proved on record cash memos of purchase of medicines Ext.3/D-1 to Ext. PW-3/D-41. This witness also produced a copy of FIR and cutting of newspaper which came to be placed on record as Mark-A & Mark-D. Besides above, this witness also produced on record diability certificate Mark-C and photographs Ext.PW-3/F and Ext.PW-3/G. This witness deposed that he suffered 100% disability and as of today cannot do any work. He claimed during his deposition that he has already spent sum of Rs. 1 lac on his treatment and on the representation being made by his wife to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, sum of Rs.30,000/- was reimbursed to him. He deposed that he is to further undergo Surgery and for that purpose sum of Rs. 50,000/- is required. While stating that sum of Rs. 7000/- was paid to him by proprietor of M/s Shandil Furniture Houe, after burn injuries, this witness deposed that whole of his family consisting of three daughters and one son, is dependent upon him. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness nowhere suggests that opposite party was able to extract anything contrary to what this witness stated in his examination-in-chief. Suggestion put to this witness that he was not paid Rs.7000/- by Shandil Furniture House, was specifically denied by this witness. He also denied that he was not employee of the Shandil Furniture House. If the aforesaid statement made by this witness is read in its entirety, it clearly establishes on record that at the time of alleged incident, he was in the employment of employer i.e. M/s Shandil Furniture House. 10. He also denied that he was not employee of the Shandil Furniture House. If the aforesaid statement made by this witness is read in its entirety, it clearly establishes on record that at the time of alleged incident, he was in the employment of employer i.e. M/s Shandil Furniture House. 10. Though, the employers attempted to carve out a case that neither he had employed workman nor he is the owner of the shop, but interestingly, no such suggestion ever came to be put to the aforesaid claimant witnesses. Moreover, if the statements made by this witnesses adduced on record by employer are perused in their entirety, they nowhere suggest that the shop, i.e. Shandil Furniture House was not being owned and run by employer Bala Ram. 11. RW-1, Bhagat Singh, while admitting factum with regard to his acquaintance with employer Bala Ram deposed that he had not seen Asha Ram doing work there, meaning thereby that at the time of incident M/s Shandil Furniture was being run by the employer namely Bala Ram. Similarly, this witness admitted factum with regard to fire in the shop, in the year 2007. This witness categorically stated in his statement that he had heard that two outsiders have been burnt in that fire. In his cross-examination, he stated that true name of Bala Ram is Balak Ram Shandil and he cannot say as to who was the proprietor of said shop. Similarly, he feigned ignorance about the person who used to work in the shop. He also admitted that Bala Ram is known by the name of Balak Ram. Though, he feigned ignorance that person named Asha Ram used to work in the said furniture, but he nowhere specifically denied factum with regard to employment of workman Asha Ram in the shop being run by Balak Ram Shandil. RW-2, Kuldeep Verma, categorically stated that Balak Ram @ Bala Nand runs Furniture shop at Kasumpati. This witness in his cross-examination feigned ignorance with regard to alleged incident of fire as well as employment of workman namely Asha Ram in the shop being run by employer Balak Ram. RW-3, Yashwant deposed that Bala Ram never ran any shop in the name of Shandil Furniture House nor he was proprietor of M/s Shandil Furniture House. He also stated that workman was never employed by Bala Ram. RW-3, Yashwant deposed that Bala Ram never ran any shop in the name of Shandil Furniture House nor he was proprietor of M/s Shandil Furniture House. He also stated that workman was never employed by Bala Ram. He deposed that he is not aware as to how Asha Ram was burnt. He stated that at the time of fire neither he nor Bala Ram was inside the shop. He also stated that neither Bala Ram nor they had employed/hired the workman. He deposed that he has not aware as to who was other person with workman at the time of fire but stated that he had later come to know that the person namely Yusuf Khan had come there with workman for dropping a Cylinder and as soon as Cylinder was kept , it caught file on account of leakage of gas. If the statements of all the witnesses adduced on record by employer are read in conjunction, they clearly establish the factum with regard to employment given by employer Balak Ram Shandil to workman Asha Ram as well alleged incident of fire happened on 4.1.2007. If the statement of RW-3, Yashwant, who otherwise happens to be son of employer Balak Ram Shandil, is perused in its entirety, it clearly establishes that the shop in the name and style of Shandil Furniture House was being run in the premises at the time of incident 12. Having carefully scanned entire evidence led on record by respective parties, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity to the findings returned by court below with regard to employment of workman in the shop, i.e. Shandil Furniture, House, Kasumpti being run by employer Balak Ram Shandil 13. No doubt, in the case at hand, workman failed to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that at the time of alleged incident, he was being paid salary to the tune of Rs.4200/- per month, but court below has rightly considered the monthly wages of the workman for purpose of calculating amount of compensation as Rs.4,000/- per month taking note of explanation II to Section 4 (1) (a) (b) of Workmen Compensation Act, wherein, it has been specifically provided that where the monthly wages of a workman exceed Rs. 4000/-, the monthly wages for the purpose of clause (a) and (b) shall be deemed to be Rs. 4000/- only. 4000/-, the monthly wages for the purpose of clause (a) and (b) shall be deemed to be Rs. 4000/- only. Even if, aforesaid provision is ignored and is not taken into consideration, then monthly income of petitioner is/was required to be assessed on the basis of monthly wages payable at the time of incident under Minimum Wages Act Since, it stands duly established on record that at the time of alleged incident, workman was rendering services of Carpenter, in the shop being run by employer Bala Ram Shandil, he is otherwise required to be considered as a skilled/ worker and by no stretch of imagination, sum of Rs.4,000/- assessed by court below as monthly wage of workman can be said to be on higher side. Factum with regard to workman having suffered burn injuries as well as disability thereafter, stand duly established on record, as is evident from the statements of PW-4, Dr. R.K. Sharma and PW-5, Dr. Anil Malhotra. PW-5, Dr. Anil Malhotra, who had issued disability certificate, has clearly stated before the court below that disability of Asha Ram is 100%. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness nowhere suggests that opposite party was able to shatter the testimony of aforesaid witness. Dr. Anil Malhotra, who is otherwise an independent witness, cannot be said to have any interest, if any, in the case. 14. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by court below granting compensation in favour of the workman. In view of above, no interference is called for in the impugned order and same is accordingly upheld. Present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Cross Objections No.25 of 2013 15. Learned counsel representing the cross-objector/workman, states that he does not intend to press the cross objection field by workman. Consequently, in view of the above, the cross-objections are dismissed as not pressed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.