The absence of evidence proving an employer-employee relationship justifies the court's interference with the compensation order, emphasizing the need for substantial proof in such claims.

JUDGMENT :

T.R. RAVI, J.

1. The opposite party in ECC No. 21 of 2020 before the Employees Compensation Tribunal, Idukki has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2023 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,93,969/- with interest as compensation to the respondent/applicant for an accident that has allegedly taken place during employment. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner has assumed the existence of the jurisdictional fact of an employer-employee relationship and proceeded to grant compensation even without any consideration of the evidence on record. It is hence contended that the findings are perverse, which is by itself a substantial question of law.

2. The application for compensation was filed alleging that the respondent sustained injuries while in employment as a general worker in M/s. Fathima Constructions, Kanjirappally, Ponkunnam, allegedly owned by the appellant. The accident is said to have taken place on 25.6.2019 at about 11 a.m. while the applicant, along with his co-workers named Joy and Georgekutty, were drilling rock at about 65Ft. height using a jackhammer, and the applicant fell down from the rock to the ground with the jackhammer and sustained injuries. The injuries were multiple fractures over the backbone, head, ribs, hands, and legs, damage to the spinal cord, damage to the urinary bladder, etc. The respondent was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, and was admitted there for about one week. It is stated that after one week, he was discharged from Medical College, Kottayam, at the instigation of the appellant/respondent, and was admitted to Medical College Hospital, Theni, where he had undergone surgery for the spinal cord. It is alleged that the appellant visited the respondent at Medical College Hospital, Theni, and had also given Rs.40,000/- for treatment expenses in four installments. The respondent claimed that he was receiving Rs.1,000/- per day as wages, and he was 41 years old at the time of the accident.

3. The appellant filed a written statement specifically contending that the respondent was not a workman under him at any point of time. The specific contention is that the appellant has not conducted any metal crusher unit in the name of Fathima Constructions, Kanjirapplly, Ponkunnam, and he has never conducted the business of crushed stone materials. He has denied the allegations in the claim petition including the allegation that he had given amounts to the respondent for treatment. According to the appellant he was conducting the business of leasing earth movers (JCB) and was not conducting any construction company at any time. It is also stated that he has employed only JCB operators as workers under him. It is further contended that he does not have any construction site in the place of the alleged accident.

4. The respondent examined himself as AW1 and one Vijayakumar as AW2 who is stated to be a co-worker. The appellant examined himself as RW1. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the respondent. Ext.X1 is the Standing Disability Assessment Board Certificate issued by the Medical Board at Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Ext.A1 is a copy of the aadhaar card of the respondent, which proves his identity. Ext.A2 is the discharge summary issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Theni which proves the injury. No document relating to the treatment afforded at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam has been produced. Ext.A3 is a copy of a letter dated 15.9.2020, which has been issued by the Tahsildar, Kanjirappally, to the respondent. The contents of the letter, which is contested by the appellant, are dealt with later.

5. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, considered the question regarding the employer-employee relationship and whether the respondent sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the appellant. A reading of the order would show that the Commissione