SOMNATH SHRIRANG GAIKWAD Vs. KACHRULAL NANDLAL TOSHNIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (Original applicant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 5-7-86 given by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior division) at Beed who was also functioning as the Commissioner for workmen's compensation The applicant had filed an application U/s. 10 of the Workmen's compensation Act against the respondents claiming from them an amount of Rs. 25,200/- and penalty of Rs. 12,600/- with interest alleging that he was employed by them and he sustained an employment injury in the course of his employment while working on the field where the threshing machine was being operated It was the case of the applicant that he was employed to do work on the said machine and while working hemet with an accident and his left hand (palm) was cut off in the machine He caused a notice to be issued for compensation to be paid by the non applicants/respondents There was no reply from them to the said notice and therefore, he filed the present application before the Workmen's Compensation commissioner The non applicants/respondents appeared before the Commissioner and filed their written statement denying the fact of employment of the applicant under them According to them he was employed with a contractor company to carry water and he himself was an owner of agricultural land and that they had no employer employee relationship with him at all The non applicants therefore, denied any liability to pay any compensation much less penalty or interest to the applicant. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Commissioner framed the following issues

(2.) I have heard the advocates for both the parties and 1 have also carefully examined the evidence adduced before the learned Commissioner The very basic question of employer employee relationship has been held by the Commissioner on the basis of the evidence before him that the applicant was not an employee of the non-applicants It is also found on the basis of the evidence that the applicant happened to be there to get his own crop threshing in the machine and got his left palm cut in the process The non applicants case has been accepted by the commissioner on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence Aa against this the applicant has not produced am documentary evidence to show that he was in the employment of the non applicants The Commissioner has rightly commented that the two witnesses who were the neighbours of the applicant himself from the same village have categorically said that he was owning his own agricultural land and he was also working under the contractor They have also said that he was not doing any work for the non-applicants Besides there was an independent witness from the contractor who sworn on oath that the Applicant was in their employment and he also produced a diary to show payment of wages to the Applicant. In these circumstances, I am not able to find any fault with the findings recorded by the commissioner that the applicant was never employed by the non applicants I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of the learned comnussioner There is no other substantial question of law involved. The application has been decided purely on the basis of the evidence on record. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.