S.P. GARG, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant M/s. M.P. Industries under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to impugn an order dated 27.08.2013 of learned Commissioner by which the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,52,231/- to the respondent. The appeal is contested by the respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.

3. Claim petition was filed by the respondent under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. It was averred that the respondent was employed as a mechanic in the appellant’s factory. During the employment, he suffered occupational respiratory diseases due to use of certain chemicals/acids in the factory during production process. No safety measures/devices were provided to him while working in the said factory. Because of excessive use of the chemicals, the claimant contracted respiratory diseases and no treatment was provided for it. The claimant got medical treatment and incurred around Rs. 14,150/- on medical expenses and this amount was not reimbursed to him. On 30.05.2009, the management terminated his service illegally. Demand notice served upon the appellant did not have any effect.

4. The claim petition was contested by the appellant and it was averred that no chemicals/ acids were used in the factory. It was having a pollution clearance certificate from Delhi Pollution Control Committee on 30.01.2004. The factory was established in the year 1997. The respondent who was in employment since 1997 was paid Rs. 55,000/- on 07.06.2009 in full and final settlement of all the claims.

5. The respondent filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.WW-1/A) and relied upon documents (Ex.WW-1/1 to Ex.WW-1/8). The appellant examined Surender Pal Sharma and Manan Sharma who filed their evidence by way of affidavits and proved on record various documents [Annexure-1(A), Annexure-1(B) to Annexure-IV]. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Commissioner awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,52,231/- to the respondent. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been filed.

6. It is not clear as to since when the respondent was in employment with the appellant. He claimed that he was in employment with the appellant’s company since 1992 whereas appellant’s plea was that the respondent was employed vide appointment letter (Ex.MW-1/1) on 01.07.1997. The respondent did not produce any document on record to show his employment with the appellant since 1992, as urged. In the absence of any credible document on record, it cannot be inferred that the respondent was in employment with the appellant since 1992.

7. It is not in dispute that the respondent had filed proceedings before the Labour Commissioner and reference no. F24/ID/(352)/09/NWD/(460)/11/Lab./3451-55 dated 28.02.2011 was received by the Labour Court. After the receipt of the reference, notice was sent to the parties. In ID No. 189/2011, after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court held that the workman i.e. the respondent was not entitled to any relief in the claim. It is relevant to note that the learned Presiding Officer had noted that Rs. 55,000/- were paid to the respondent workman in full and final settlement of all the claims. The respondent’s plea that he was forced to put signatures on the settlement deed was not accepted by the learned Presiding Officer. The said order seemingly was not challenged and has attainted finality. It is further to note that in the said proceedings, the respondent had raised the demand of Rs. 14,150/- allegedly incurred by him for his medical treatment for respiratory diseases. The said settlement took place after the termination of the services with the management on 30.05.2009.

8. The claim petition was filed before the Commissioner in 2013. The delay in filing the claim