( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Senior Sub- Judge, Sangrur, whose decision came to be affirmed by the learned Single Judge in the High court and the division bench did not see any valid reason to entertain the letters patent appeal. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under: The appellant claims that he was the workman on the farms of the respondent. On 26/7/1984 while he was working he sustained personal injury which resulted in the loss of both his hands just above the wrists resulting in permanent disability with 100 per cent functional loss. He alleged that he was earning a salary of Rs 360 per month besides meal, etc. The respondent contested the claim by contending that the appellant was not his employee: that he had not sustained the injury while operating the machine on his farm and that he had not suffered injury in the course of employment. The learned Senior Sub-Judge, Sangrur. who was the authority under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter called "the Act") raised four issues and on finding that the appellant had failed to