DHYAN SINGH Vs. RAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant who claimed to be in the employment of respondent and having suffered an injury during the course of employment and arising out of an employment has felt aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition filed by him under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act by the impugned award dated 31/08/1999 in Claim Case No. 5/W.C.N.F./96 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation' and has come to this Court in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

(2.) While rejecting the claim petition, the learned Commissioner on appreciation of, evidence led by parties came to a conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove that he was ever employed by the respondent or that he was at any point of time in his employment much less at a monthly salary of Rs. 1500/- as alleged by the claimant. While coming to this conclusion, the learned Commissioner held that the claimant has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that he was in the employment of respondent, such as appointment letter, pay-slip, to show that he actually was in the employment. The learned i Commissioner then on the basis of oral evidence led by parties came to a conclusion on its appreciation that the evidence tendered does not prove that claimant was in the employment of respondent and that top on the date of .accident in question. This finding led to 'dismissal of claim petition - it being a sine-qua-non for entertaining the claim petition under Section 10 ibid.

(3.) Having heard the parties, I have come to the conclusion that appeal has no force and must be dismissed. To hold in favour of appellant (claimant) in this appeal means re-appreciation of oral evidence tendered by the parties. It is not just possible for me to undertake this exercise in an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act because in Section 30 appeal, only question of law can be examined and not questions of fact. Whether claimant (appellant herein) was in the employment of respondent or not was debated on oral evidence before the Commissioner and learned Commissioner by impugned order, held against the claimant (appellant herein). It is this finding which is assailed in this appeal.