Application For Compensation on the Death of the labourer

October 16, 20260 By Avinash Nandan Sharma

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Labour Welfare Centre, South – West District, New Delhi

Claim Application No._________ Of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF :

Mustkeem & Ors. …. Applicants

Versus

Feeroj & Anr. …. Respondents

INDEX

S.No.	Particulars	Pages	C.Fee
1.	Memo of Parties	A
2.	Application for Grant of Compensation under Employee’s Compensation Act,1923 along with Affidavit
3.	List of Documents alongwith Documents
4.	Vakalatnama

Filed By

(Avinash Nandan Sharma)

ADVOCATE

Chamber No. 671, Patiala House Court,

New Delhi-110001. Mob: 8800794128

Delhi

Date:

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Labour Welfare Centre, South – West District, New Delhi

Claim Application No._________ Of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF :

Mustkeem & Ors. …. Applicants

Versus

Feeroj & Anr. …. Respondents

MEMO OF PARTIES

Mustkeem

S/o Late Sheradeen

Age: 51 years, Occ: Labour / Dependent Father

R/o Ashok Vihar – 5,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No. xx)

Smt. Islaman

W/o Mustkeem

Age: 50 years, Occ: Household / Dependent Mother

R/o Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No. xx)

Smt. Rubeena

Wido/o Late Talib

Age: 33 years, Occ: Household / Dependent Widow

R/o Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni, ,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

Also at: House No. x,

Ashok Vihar, Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No. xxx)

Baby Misbah

D/o Late Talib

Age: 8 years (DOB: 30/01/2018), Minor Dependent Daughter

(Through her Natural Guardian / Mother, Smt. Rubeena, Applicant No. 3) R/o Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No.xx)

Master Mohd Tayyab

S/o Late Talib

Age: 7 years (DOB: 20/02/2019), Minor Dependent Son

(Through his Natural Guardian / Mother, Smt. Rubeena, Applicant No. 3) R/o Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No. xx)

…..Applicants / Claimants

Versus

Feeroj

S/o Shabbir

(Contractor / Immediate Employer)

Address 1: Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi – 110070.

Address 2: x

Post Office: x

District: Budaun, Uttar Pradesh – 243601.

Mobile: +91 x

(Aadhaar No. x)

Dinesh Birwal

(Principal Employer / Property Owner)

R/o z, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi – 110070.

…..Respondents

Applicants / Claimants

Through

(Avinash Nandan Sharma )

ADVOCATE

Chamber No. 671, Patiala House Court,

New Delhi-110001. Mob: 8800794128

Delhi

Date:

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Labour Welfare Centre, South – West District, New Delhi

Claim Application No._________ Of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF :

Mustkeem

S/o Late Sheradeen

Age: 51 years,

Occ: Labour / Dependent Father

R/o Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No. x)

Smt. Islaman

W/o Mustkeem

Age: 50 years,

Occ: Household / Dependent Mother

R/o Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No. x)

Smt. Rubeena

Wido/o Late Talib

Age: 33 years,

Occ: Household / Dependent Widow

R/o Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

Also at: House No. x,

Ashok Vihar, Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No. x)

Baby Misbah

D/o Late Talib

Age: 8 years (DOB: 30/01/2018),

Minor Dependent Daughter

(Through her Natural Guardian

/ Mother, Smt. Rubeena, Applicant No. 3)

R/o Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No. x)

Master Mohd Tayyab

S/o Late Talib

Age: 7 years (DOB: 20/02/2019),

Minor Dependent Son

(Through his Natural Guardian /

Mother, Smt. Rubeena, Applicant No. 3)

R/o Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.

(Aadhaar No. x)

…..Applicants / Claimants

Versus

Feeroj

S/o Shabbir

(Contractor / Immediate Employer)

Address 1: Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi – 110070.

Address 2: Y

Post Office: Ram Zanpur,

District: Budaun, Uttar Pradesh – 243601.

Mobile: +91 x

(Aadhaar No. x)

Dinesh Birwal

(Principal Employer / Property Owner)

R/o x, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi – 110070.

…..Respondents

CLAIM APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 10 READ WITH SECTIONS 3, 4, 4A, 12, AND 22 OF THE EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 (READ WITH RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CODE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, 2020) FOR GRANT OF STATUTORY COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNFORTUNATE AND FATAL ACCIDENTAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY DECEASED WORKMAN TALIB RESULTING IN HIS DEATH ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE RESPONDENTS

Most Respectfully Showeth:

The Applicants above-named are the sole surviving legal heirs, legal representatives, and total dependents of the deceased workman, Late Shri Talib, who died in an industrial accident arising out of and during the course of his employment under the Respondents on 20 July 2026. The Applicant No. 1 is the father (aged about 51 years), Applicant No. 2 is the mother (aged about 50 years), Applicant No. 3 is the widow (aged about 33 years), Applicant No. 4 is the minor daughter (aged about 8 years), and Applicant No. 5 is the minor son (aged about 7 years) of the deceased workman. All Applicants were entirely dependent upon the earnings and income of the deceased Talib for their daily sustenance, livelihood, shelter, and survival, and have been rendered destitute due to his untimely death.
The deceased workman, Late Shri Talib, was a skilled welder and fabrication labourer having an experience of more than 8 years in welding, grill fitting, and structural iron fabrication work. As reflected in his educational marksheet issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P., his date of birth was 10 May 2001 (and aged about 25 to 26 years at the time of the incident, while other administrative identity documents reflect his age between 26 and 29 years), residing at House No. x, Ashok Vihar-2, Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102.
Respondent No. 2, Mr. Dinesh Birwal, is the absolute owner and occupier of the residential premises situated at x, Vasant Kunj, South West, New Delhi – 110070, and is the Principal Employer within the meaning and contemplation of Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. Respondent No. 1, Mr. Feeroj, S/o Shri Shabbir, is an independent contractor engaged in the trade and business of structural shade fabrication, iron grill manufacturing, and building cover fabrication work, operating from Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and having permanent residence at Village x, Post Office x, District Budaun, Uttar Pradesh – 243601.
Respondent No. 2 had engaged and contracted Respondent No. 1 for the execution of iron grill and fabrication works, specifically the hazardous installation and welding of iron safety grills and cover netting outside the windows situated on the exterior of the Third Floor of the premises at x, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. For the execution of the said contractual work of Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 hired and employed the deceased workman, Shri Talib, along with a co-worker and eye-witness, Shri Mohd Zafir (S/o Shri Babuddin, R/o House No. Y, Inam Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh), as daily-wage skilled welders/fitters.
Respondent No. 1 had fixed and agreed to pay daily wages of Rs. 800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred only) per day to the deceased workman, Shri Talib. The deceased worked consistently and earned approximately Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Thousand only) per month, which constituted the sole source of income for the sustenance of his large family consisting of his aged parents, his young wife, and his two minor school-going children.
On the fateful day of 20 July 2026, in pursuant to the express directions, supervision, and instructions of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, the deceased workman Talib along with co-worker Mohd Zafir reported for duty at about 10:00 AM at Flat/Premises x, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to fix and weld the heavy iron grill outside the window of the Third Floor.
Upon examining the extreme elevation, sheer drop, and precarious positioning of the third-floor window opening onto the road, the deceased workman Talib and Mohd Zafir noticed that the working conditions were perilous and life-threatening. The deceased workman and Mohd Zafir specifically pointed out the grave danger to Respondent No. 1 (the contractor) and explicitly requested him to provide necessary personal protective equipment (PPE), including safety harnesses, fall-arrest safety belts, secure scaffolding, sturdy ladders, and protective headgear.
Respondent No. 1 wholly neglected, refused, and failed to provide any safety measures, safety belts, scaffolding, or protective equipment whatsoever, and instead summarily dismissed their concerns, commanding them to proceed with the work without delay by stating that nothing would happen, whereafter Respondent No. 1 left the site.
Finding themselves in an unsafe environment, the deceased workman and Mohd Zafir approached Respondent No. 2, the house owner and principal employer, apprising him of the dangerous height and absence of safety belts or secure platforms, and requested him to arrange for safety equipment before compelling them to work at such height. However, Respondent No. 2 completely abdicated his statutory and common law duty of care, rebuffed their plea, and strictly directed them to carry on the work as instructed or speak to their contractor, stating that he would do nothing.
Left with no other alternative under the coercive demands of both Respondents to complete the assigned task, the deceased workman and Mohd Zafir commenced fixing the grill outside the third-floor window. During the midday hours, the deceased Talib also telephoned his family members from the site, specifically conveying his serious apprehension regarding the dangerous nature of the work and the persistent refusal of both Respondents to provide safety harnesses or protective apparatus.
By approximately 03:00 PM on 20 July 2026, the deceased workman Talib and Mohd Zafir had managed to fix three fasteners onto the concrete frame of the third-floor window, with one final fastener remaining to be fixed. In order to operate the heavy electric welding machine, the deceased workman was compelled to precariously balance himself on the narrow external railing of the third floor, while Mohd Zafir stood on the adjoining terrace/roof ledge holding the connecting cables.
While performing the welding at that precarious elevation, the deceased Talib instructed Mohd Zafir to step back and lower the voltage on the welding machine. As Mohd Zafir turned to adjust the machine regulator and looked back, the deceased Talib’s foot slipped on the unguarded railing. Having no safety belt, lifeline, or fall-arrest harness to anchor him, the deceased workman plunged downwards from the third floor, struck a frail tin shade projection below, collided against roadside tree branches, and crashed head-first onto the hard asphalt road below.
The co-worker Mohd Zafir immediately rushed down to the street and found the deceased workman Talib lying motionless in a massive pool of blood, having sustained extensive and catastrophic craniocerebral injuries, with his skull shattered and brain matter oozing out. Mohd Zafir immediately telephoned Respondent No. 1, who failed to provide any emergency assistance, whereupon local bystanders summoned a PCR / CATS ambulance.
The injured workman Talib was rushed in an unconscious and unresponsive state to the Emergency Department of Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where the attending medical officers, after finding bilateral fixed and dilated pupils, flat-line ECG, and unrecordable vital signs, formally declared him ‘brought dead’ at 04:50 PM on 20 July 2026, vide MLC No. x/2026 and MRD No. x.
On the basis of the statement given by eye-witness Mohd Zafir and the initial hospital intimation (DD No. 65A and DD No. 99A), First Information Report (FIR) No. x/2026 was registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, South West Delhi, on 20 July 2026 under Sections 290 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 287, 288, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) against both the contractor and the owner for causing death by rash and negligent act and failure to provide required safety apparatus. Sub-Inspector Yashpal Yadav (Belt No. D-x / PIS No. x) took up investigation, inspected the crime scene at x, Vasant Kunj, lifted blood-stained gauze exhibits from the road, and completed the inquest papers.
The post-mortem examination was conducted on 21 July 2026 between 11:30 AM and 01:15 PM at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, by Dr. Himanshu Akhria (PMR No. x-26, MedLEApR ID: x). The Autopsy Report revealed horrifying multiple antemortem traumatic injuries, including:

A lacerated wound measuring 3 cm x 3 cm x brain parenchyma deep over the left parietal region with soft greyish-white brain matter oozing out;
Multiple comminuted fractures across the frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital bones as well as fractures across the anterior, middle, and posterior cranial fossa;
Extensive diffuse subdural hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intraventricular bleeding;
Complete comminuted fracture of the T5 thoracic vertebra with severe spinal cord contusion;
Bilateral fractures of the 3rd to 6th ribs on the right side and 3rd to 5th ribs on the left side, along with hemothorax and parenchymal tears in the left lung;
Deep parenchymal laceration measuring 5 cm x 1 cm on the anterior surface of the right lobe of the liver;
Multiple bone-deep lacerations and joint dislocations of the middle, ring, and little fingers of both hands, sustained while desperately attempting to arrest the fatal fall. The autopsy doctor unequivocally opined that the cause of death was craniocerebral damage and its complications consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head, with all injuries being antemortem in nature and consistent with a catastrophic fall from a multi-storied building.

The death certificate of the deceased Talib was duly registered on 23 July 2026 under Registration No. x (Application No. x/2026) and issued by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), Government of NCT of Delhi, confirming the date of death as 20 July 2026 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
The fatal accident occurred strictly during the actual discharge of duties assigned by the Respondents, on the designated premises of Respondent No. 2, and arose directly out of and in the course of the deceased’s employment. Had the Respondents discharged their statutory obligations by providing standard safety harnesses, fall-arrest ropes, safety nets, or exterior scaffolding, the fatal fall would have been prevented. The accident was the direct, proximate, and inevitable outcome of the joint culpable negligence, omission, and statutory violations committed by both Respondents.
Following the tragic demise of the deceased workman, the Applicants were thrown into extreme penury, trauma, and acute starvation. The Applicants caused a formal Legal Demand Notice dated 14 August 2026 to be served through their legal counsels upon Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, calling upon them jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) towards statutory compensation, loss of dependency, and damages within 15 days of receipt. The said legal notice was dispatched via Registered Inland Speed Post from Sonipat Head Post Office on 14 August 2026 vide Consignment Numbers EH23IN (addressed to Respondent No. 2, Dinesh Birwal at Vasant Kunj), x (addressed to Respondent No. 1, Feeroj at Vasant Kunj), and x (addressed to Respondent No. 1, Feeroj at Budaun, UP). As confirmed by the official Department of Posts Tracking Report, Consignment No. EHxIN was successfully served and delivered to Respondent No. 1 on 22 August 2026 at 15:07:02 hours at Ram Zanpur Branch Post Office, Budaun.
Notwithstanding the receipt and service of the said statutory notice, the Respondents failed, neglected, and refused to deposit or pay any amount of compensation or even funeral expenses to the bereaved Applicants, and flatly refused to acknowledge their lawful statutory liabilities under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, the dispute having arisen between the parties, the Applicants are fully entitled to institute and maintain the present claim application before this Learned Court under Section 10 read with Sections 12 and 22 of the Act.
The deceased workman, Late Shri Talib, was an employee within the meaning and contemplation of Section 2(1)(dd) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, having been engaged and employed as a skilled fabrication and welding labourer by Respondent No. 1 for the execution of structural work contracted by Respondent No. 2. The relationship of master and servant between the Respondents and the deceased is fully substantiated by the contemporaneous police record in First Information Report No. x/2026 registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, the eye-witness statement of co-worker Mohd Zafir recorded under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the physical occurrence of the fatal fall at the premises of Respondent No. 2 situated at x, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
The unfortunate death of the deceased workman occurred on 20 July 2026 strictly arising out of and in the course of his employment under the Respondents, satisfying all statutory requirements under Section 3(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The deceased was on the third floor of the premises of Respondent No. 2 solely to execute the work of fixing window safety grills as directed by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, and the fatal fall occurred during the actual operation of the electric welding machine on the external railing. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandramma v. Manager, Regional Office, NCC Limited, (2022) 17 SCC 797, compensation is squarely attracted when an employee sustains death due to a work-related hazard during work hours, establishing an indubitable causal connection between the accident and the employment.
Respondent No. 2, being the owner of premises x, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, engaged Respondent No. 1 as an independent contractor for structural fabrication and grill installation on his multi-storied residential building. Under Section 12(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, where any principal contracts with any contractor for the execution of any work, the principal employer is liable to pay to any employee employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that employee had been immediately employed by him. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 as principal employer and Respondent No. 1 as immediate employer/contractor are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the statutory claim of the Applicants.
The liability of the principal employer under Section 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is absolute and intended by the legislature to protect vulnerable workmen and their dependents from being left without remedy when immediate petty contractors lack financial means or attempt to evade process. This settled principle was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Shri Krishan v. Jasoda Devi & Ors. (FAO No. 135/2016, decided on 27 September 2017), wherein the owner of the premises executing construction work through an immediate contractor was held liable to pay statutory compensation for the death of a labourer who fell from a height. Respondent No. 2 cannot escape liability towards the Applicants, subject only to his statutory right of indemnity against Respondent No. 1 under Section 12(2) of the Act.
The Applicants, being the father (Shri Mustkeem), mother (Smt. Islaman), widow (Smt. Rubeena), minor daughter (Baby Misbah), and minor son (Master Mohd Tayyab), fall squarely within the definition of “dependent” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. All five Applicants were wholly dependent on the daily earnings of the deceased workman Talib, who was the sole breadwinner of the family, and are entitled to institute, maintain, and prosecute the present claim application before this Learned Court under Section 22 of the Act.
The deceased workman was earning daily wages of Rs. 800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred only) per day, amounting to approximately Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Thousand only) per month at the time of the fatal accident. Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, where death results from the injury, the amount of compensation payable shall be an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased employee multiplied by the relevant factor, or an amount as notified, whichever is more. For the purposes of computation under Section 4(1B) of the Act, taking the statutory ceiling of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month notified by the Central Government, fifty per cent thereof comes to Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only).
According to the Certificate-cum-Marks Sheet issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. (Roll No. 05, Certificate No. x), the exact date of birth of the deceased workman Talib was 10 May 2001, making him 25 years, 2 months, and 10 days of age on the date of his death on 20 July 2026 (completed age of 25 years). Even taking the age reflected in his Aadhaar Card (Year of Birth 1997) or the Post-Mortem Report (approximately 29 years), the applicable relevant factor specified in Schedule IV of the Act is:

For completed age 25 years: Factor of 216.91, yielding a base statutory compensation of Rs. 16,26,825/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty-Five only), being Rs. 7,500/- multiplied by 216.91;
For completed age 26 years: Factor of 215.28, yielding a base statutory compensation of Rs. 16,14,600/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred only);
For completed age 29 years: Factor of 209.92, yielding a base statutory compensation of Rs. 15,74,400/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Seventy-Four Thousand Four Hundred only). The Applicants are entitled to the highest statutory computation based on the authentic matriculation certificate establishing his age as 25 years, alongside general damages and statutory compensation totaling Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) as claimed in the legal demand notice.

Under Section 4(4) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the employer is statutorily mandated to pay, in addition to the compensation, an amount of not less than Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards the funeral expenses of the deceased employee. The Respondents have failed and neglected to pay even a single rupee towards the funeral and last rites of the deceased workman, and are liable to be directed to pay the statutory funeral expenses forthwith.
Under Section 4A(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, compensation under Section 4 must be paid as soon as it falls due. It is well settled by a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289, and reiterated in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George, (2012) 12 SCC 540, that compensation under the Act falls due on the date of the accident itself, and not on the date of adjudication by the Commissioner. The fatal accident occurred on 20 July 2026, and the Respondents were statutorily obligated to deposit the compensation within one month thereof, i.e., on or before 20 August 2026.
Having failed and defaulted in depositing the compensation within the stipulated statutory period of one month from 20 July 2026, the Respondents are jointly and severally liable under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire compensation amount from the date of the accident (20 July 2026) until the date of actual realization and deposit before this Learned Court.
There was no justification, lawful excuse, or bona fide reason whatsoever for the Respondents to withhold the payment of compensation to the destitute dependents, particularly after the service of the statutory Legal Notice dated 14 August 2026, which was delivered to Respondent No. 1 on 22 August 2026. The default committed by the Respondents is deliberate, contumacious, and entirely unjustified. Consequently, this Learned Court ought to direct the Respondents under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act to show cause why an additional sum not exceeding fifty per cent of the compensation amount should not be recovered from them by way of statutory penalty and directed to be paid to the Applicants.
The fatal incident was not occasioned by any contributory negligence, intoxication, or willful disobedience on the part of the deceased workman. On the contrary, the deceased workman and co-worker Mohd Zafir expressly requested both Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to provide safety equipment, safety belts, and scaffolding prior to commencing work at the dangerous third-floor elevation, but both Respondents adamantly refused, as documented in FIR No. 0/2026 under Sections 290 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Provisos (b)(i), (ii), and (iii) to Section 3(1) of the Act do not apply to cases where the injury results in death, rendering the statutory liability of the Respondents unconditional and absolute.
The claim application has been filed well within the statutory period of limitation of two years from the date of death (20 July 2026) as prescribed under Section 10(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. Furthermore, the mandatory requirement of notice under Section 10 of the Act was duly complied with by the issuance of the Legal Demand Notice dated 14 August 2026 sent via Registered Inland Speed Post (Consignment Nos. EHxIN, EH2xN, and EHxIN), which was duly delivered to Respondent No. 1 at Budaun, UP on 22 August 2026.
This Learned Court has complete territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain, try, and adjudicate the present claim application under Section 21(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, as the fatal industrial accident occurred at x, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070, which falls within the local limits of the South-West District of Delhi over which this Learned Commissioner exercises jurisdiction.
The Applicants have not filed any other or similar claim petition, suit, or proceeding before any other Court, Tribunal, or Authority seeking compensation for the accidental death of Late Shri Talib, and the present application is being prosecuted bona fide and in the interest of justice.

Prayer

Wherefore, in light of the facts and grounds stated hereinabove, the Applicants most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Pass an award and order directing Respondent No. 1 (immediate employer/contractor) and Respondent No. 2 (principal employer/owner), jointly and severally, to pay and deposit a sum of Rs. 16,26,825/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty-Five only) [or such other computed sum as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper] as statutory compensation under Section 4(1)(a) read with Schedule IV of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, for the fatal accidental death of deceased workman Late Shri Talib arising out of and in the course of his employment;

(b) Pass an order directing the Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the aforesaid compensation amount computed strictly from the date of the fatal accident, i.e., 20 July 2026, until the date of actual deposit and realization before this Hon’ble Court, in terms of Section 4A(3)(a) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923;

(c) Issue a show-cause notice and pass an order imposing a penalty of 50% (fifty per cent) of the compensation amount upon the Respondents under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, on account of their unjustified and contumacious default in depositing the compensation within one month from the date of the accident, and direct the penalty amount to be disbursed to the destitute Applicants;

(d) Direct the Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay a statutory sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) [or such higher amount as may be prescribed] towards funeral expenses under Section 4(4) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923;

(e) Direct the Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the costs and expenses of the present claim proceedings incurred by the impoverished Applicants; and

(f) Pass such other and further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

VERIFICATION

I, Mustkeem, S/o Late Shri A, aged about 51 years, residing at Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102, Applicant No. 1 above-named, do hereby state, verify, and declare on solemn affirmation on behalf of myself and all other co-applicants that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 20 of the accompanying Claim Application are true and correct to my own personal knowledge, and the contents of paragraphs 21 to 35 and the sub-clauses (a) to (f) of the Prayer are based on legal submissions, statutory records, and advice received from our legal counsel, which I believe to be true and correct. I verify that no part of the aforesaid application is false, nothing material has been suppressed or concealed therefrom, and no other or similar claim petition has been preferred before any other court, tribunal, or authority in respect of the subject matter.

Verified at New Delhi on this 15^th day of October, 2026.

Applicants / Claimants

Through

Delhi

Date:

(Avinash Nandan Sharma )

Advocate

Chamber No.671, Patiala House Court

New Delhi- 1 Mob: 08800794128

E-mail: advocateavinashsharma@gmail.com

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Labour Welfare Centre, South – West District, New Delhi

Claim Application No._________ Of 2026

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mustkeem, S/o Late Shri A, aged about 51 years, residing at Ashok Vihar – 5, Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201102, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

I am the Applicant No. 1 in the accompanying Claim Application, being the father of the deceased workman, Late Shri Talib, and I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am also authorized and competent to depose to this affidavit for myself as well as on behalf of Applicant No. 2 (Smt. Islaman, mother of the deceased), Applicant No. 3 (Smt. Rubeena, widow of the deceased), Applicant No. 4 (Baby Misbah, minor daughter of the deceased), and Applicant No. 5 (Master Mohd Tayyab, minor son of the deceased), who are all co-dependents residing jointly with me.
The accompanying Claim Application under Section 10 read with Sections 3, 4, 4A, 12, and 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been drafted under my instructions and the contents of paragraphs 1 to 35 thereof as well as the reliefs sought in the Prayer have been read over and explained to me in vernacular Hindi, which I have understood and confirm to be true and correct. I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to treat the contents of the said Claim Application as an integral part of this affidavit, and the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
The deceased workman, Shri Talib, was my son, who was working as a skilled fabrication and welding labourer with an experience of more than 8 years. On 20 July 2026, the deceased workman was employed by Respondent No. 1 (contractor) for the execution of iron grill installation and welding work at the multi-storied residential building owned by Respondent No. 2 (principal employer) situated at x, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070, at agreed daily wages of Rs. 800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred only) per day, amounting to approximately Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Thousand only) per month.
On 20 July 2026, while carrying out hazardous welding work on the external railing outside the window of the Third Floor of the said premises at B-1/1157, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, without any personal protective equipment, safety harness, fall-arrest ropes, or scaffolding having been provided by either Respondent No. 1 or Respondent No. 2 despite explicit requests, the deceased workman slipped, fell down from the third floor onto a roadside tin shade and tree, and crashed onto the asphalt road below, sustaining fatal and catastrophic craniocerebral injuries, culminating in his instantaneous death.
In respect of the said fatal industrial accident, First Information Report No. 0236/2026 was registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North under Sections 290 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against both Respondents. The deceased was declared ‘brought dead’ at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi vide MLC No. 18001212626077/2026, and the post-mortem examination was conducted vide PMR No. 1959-26.
All the Applicants were wholly dependent upon the earnings of the deceased workman Talib, who was the sole breadwinner of our family. The Applicants served a statutory Legal Demand Notice dated 14 August 2026 upon both Respondents calling upon them to pay compensation, which was duly delivered to Respondent No. 1 on 22 August 2026 via Speed Post Consignment No. EHxN, but the Respondents have utterly failed and refused to pay or deposit any compensation or funeral expenses as mandated under Sections 4, 4(4), 4A, and 12 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.
The Applicants have not filed any other or similar claim petition, suit, or legal proceeding before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court, Tribunal, or Authority seeking compensation for the accidental death of Late Shri Talib.
The cause of action arose within the territorial limits of this Hon’ble Court as the fatal accident occurred at x, Vasant Kunj, South-West Delhi, and this Hon’ble Court has full jurisdiction to try, entertain, and determine the claim under Section 21 of the Act.

Deponent

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above-named, do hereby verify and declare on solemn affirmation at New Delhi on this 15^th day of October, 2026, that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 6 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my own personal knowledge, and the contents of paragraphs 7 and 8 are based on legal advice received from counsel and believed by me to be true. No part of this affidavit is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.