THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED vs MOHIT & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 23.01.2026 Pronounced on : 27.01.2026 Uploaded on : 27.01.2026 + FAO 60/2025, CM APPL. 15192/2025, CM APPL. 20697/2025 & CM APPL. 20698/2025 THYROCARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankur Khandelwal and Ms. Kajal Andhiwal, Advocates. versus MOHIT & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. R.K. Nain and Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocates for Respondent No. 1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 seeking quashing of the order dated 23.01.2025 in case no. ECI/175/ND/2022/109. Vide the aforesaid order, the appellant was held liable to pay injury compensation of Rs.20,16,000/- to the claimant along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 29.07.2022 till its realisation. Vide the order dated 12.03.2025, this Court had directed that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PREM FAO 60/2025 Page 1 of 7 MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:27.01.2026 19:29:17 amount lying deposited with the learned Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act not be released to the claimant/respondent no. 1. 2. Succinctly, respondent no. 1 filed his claim application for injury compensation under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (“the Act”), claiming that he had met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant had failed to establish that there existed an employer-employee relation between the parties; and without prejudice to the above, had also failed to establish that the accident in question had arisen out of and in the course of such employment. Insofar as the first conte