1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Order dated 29.12.2004, made in W.C.No.49 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation II and Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,13,736/-, failing which together with 12% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside order passed by the Tribunal.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 13.05.1999, at about 05.30 p.m. while the petitioner was at work at Hamsa Garden site, Madapakkam, Chengalpattu District as construction worker, at about 15 feet above the ground level, he was electrocuted due to contact with live overhead electric wire and fell down. Due to which, he sustained many fractures on his head and forehead and left claricle. He is disabled and cannot do the job as he was earlier doing. Hence, he has suffered 100% disability. The monthly wages of the applicant amount to Rs.2,550/-. The applicant was aged 40 at the time of the accident. Accordingly, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,21,000/- together with 12% interest, before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation II and Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Chennai.

4. The respondent in their Counter had resisted the claim petition, which reads as follows:

"That the petition filed is beyond the period of limitation and hence liable to be dismissed in limine.

That the above petition is not liable to be entertained as a bar or exclusion is provided as per Section 53 of the employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

That the mandatory notice to be issued under section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act is not issued within a reasonable time from the date of accident and hence the above petition is not maintainable.

That the petitioner has not disclosed that there is any relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent and consequently the above petition is not maintainable as against this respondent under the Workmen Compensation Act.

That what the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was employed by this respondent on 13th May 1999 on the date of alleged accident and the injury during the course of his employment is highly incorrect and disputed. In fact, the petitioner was never employed by the respondent as its employee on the said date.

That the petitioner through his advocate, who is also the advocate on record for the petitioner in the above case, 5th May 2000 issued a notice to the respondent stating that he was employed as a construction worker and that on 13th May 1999 at Hansa Garden and he suffered injury and is completely disabled and he could not do the job as he was doing and sought compensation as demanded in the notice, which document has been filed as Document No.2 by the petitioner along with the petition and in response to the said notice, the respondent replied through their advocate on 12th May 2000 denying that the petitioner was not their employee at any point of time and that the said notice was misconceived.

That what the petitioner has stated in para 4 of his petition that the notice was served on the opposite party and that this respondent disputed the claim is highly incorrect. In fact, the respondent disputed the relationship of the employer and employee to entertain the demand, which is evidence from the said reply notice which is provisionally marked as document No.3 along with the petition.

That the alleged cause of injury sustained on 13th May 1999 at about 5.30 p.m. by the petitioner at the alleged work spot was due to his willful disobedience of the order expressly given for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen is that of the petitioner.

That the alleged cause of injury sustained on 13th May 1999 at about 5.30 p.m. by the petitioner at the alle