Employer liability under lease deeds and broad appellate review can justify adverse inference when key evidence is withheld.

A lessor may be treated as an employer where the lease deed and surrounding evidence show that the workman was to be retained and paid by the proprietor, and the remuneration formed part of the lease consideration; withholding the original deed and not entering the witness-box justified an adverse inference, so liability for compensation extended to the lessor. On appellate scope, Clause 10 of the Letters Patent allowed interference with an erroneous factual finding, and the phrase "substantial question of law" under the Workmen's Compensation Act was read broadly to cover cases where material evidence was ignored or adverse inference was wrongly withheld, making the appeal maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lessor was liable as employer on the evidence of the lease deed and surrounding circumstances, including the effect of withholding the lease deed and the lessor's non-appearance; (ii) Whether the appellate court could interfere with the Single Judge's finding under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and the scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Issue (i): Whether the lessor was liable as employer on the evidence of the lease deed and surrounding circumstances, including the effect of withholding the lease deed and the lessor's non-appearance.

Analysis: The evidence of the scribe and the workman showed that the lease deed contained a term requiring the workman to be retained and paid by the proprietor. The lessees' evidence did not displace this version. The original lease deed was withheld by the lessor, who also stayed out of the witness-box, warranting an adverse inference. The remuneration payable to the workman formed part of the consideration of the lease and could properly be treated as payment on behalf of the lessor.

Conclusion: The lessor was liable along with the lessees for compensation payable to the workman.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court could interfere with the Single Judge's finding under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and the scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Analysis: Clause 10 conferred a broad right of appeal without the restriction applicable to second appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure, so an erroneous factual finding could be reversed. The expression "substantial question of law" in Section 30 was given a wide meaning and included cases where material evidence was ignored and adverse inference was wrongly withheld. The appeal therefore remained competent.

Conclusion: Interference was permissible and the appeal was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The compensation liability was extended to the lessor, the contrary findings were set aside, and the workman's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material evidence is withheld and the best evidence is suppressed, an adverse inference may be drawn; and under a broad appellate provision, a court may reverse an erroneous finding even on facts when it rests on a misdirection or ignored material evidence.

---