A.H. Joshi, J.-Heard learned Advocate Shri S. Kantak, and Advocate Ms. Sapna Mordekar for the appellant and Advocate Shri N. Sawaikar for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Workmen's Compensation Act. It is seen that at the time of admission healing a substantial question of law on which the appeal has been admitted was not framed.

3. At the outset, learned Advocate for the appellant who has addressed the Court was called upon to specify the substantial question of law who has indicated those as follows :

(1) Is the impugned order which is passed in an appealable case, not a reasoned order and therefore liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

(2) Whether employer-employee relationship can be proved barely on oral evidence of claimant and his witnesses?

4. The questions of law quoted in foregoing para are framed as substantial questions of law.

5. Learned Advocate for the respondent agrees that no fresh notice is required and hence the appeal is heard.

6. Heard both learned Advocates and perused the record.

7. Facts are summarized as below :

(a) The present respondent Yesso Thlshidas Naik. The claimant, was called on 5.6.1997, by Mahesh Naik, a plumber, for assisting him in the plumbing work which was to be carried out at building construction site, of the work undertaken by Pradeep Naik - present Appellant. The claimant went there and started working.

(b) On 5.6.1997 when the claimant was working as helper with plumber Mahesh Naik, an accident occurred, in which the claimant has suffered various injuries on his person.

(c) Ultimately respondent's following limbs were required to be amputated or were lost namely :

(i) left leg below the knee,

(ii) two toes of right foot,

(iii) thumb of light hand.

(iv) index finger, and

(v) thumb of left hand were lost.

(d) The claimant had suffered disability which is certified to be 80%.

8. The respondent/claimant filed an application claiming compensation before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. The said claim was opposed by the present appellant raising grounds of maintainability and disputing the employer-employee relationship.

9. At the hearing respondent-workman examined ;

(a) himself;

(b) opponent No. 1 Mahesh Naik. The plumber, who had called the claimant to work with him as helper;

(c) the Doctor to prove disability; and

(d) the police personnel/officer on the fact that the matter of a accident was reported to police etc.

10. The present appellant participated in the trial and cross-examined claimant's witnesses, however has refrained from stepping in the witness box, and from bringing any other evidence/witness.

11. The learned Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation has decided the case on the oral evidence as brought by the claimant, and on believing said evidence, has allowed the claim.

12. In the process of appreciation of evidence the learned Commissioner found that as no evidence was adduced by Opponent No. 2 (present Appellant) to disprove the oral evidence of the claimant, the claimant as to the fact of his employment, accident to be arising out of and in the course of employment, age, wages, etc., the Commissioner was inclined to accept the evidence led by the workman. The Commissioner in the result held certain facts as proved namely :

(a) Employer-employee relationship between Pradeep Naik and the claimant, his wages and disability.

(b) Accident was arising out of and in the course of employment.

13. In the present appeal, the award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation is challenged on the grounds that :

(a) Finding that the employer employee relationship is proved, is erroneous.

(b) Factors governing compensation are not proved.

(c) Though it was an appealable case, the judgment and award is not reasoned.

14. In order to substantiate the points urged, learned Advocate for appellant has read out to the Court entire evidence and pleadings.

Entire thrust of learned Advocate for appellant is to demonstrate that :

(a) The claimant was employed by the plumber (C