The central legal point established is the requirement of substantial evidence to prove an employment relationship under the Workmen Compensation Act.

1. The appeal is directed against the Award passed in W.C.No.94 of 2001, dated 08.12.2003 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I, Chennai-6.

2. The Appellant claims that he was working under the establishment of Opposite Party company. It is dealing with iron rods etc., under the name and style of Madras Hard Tools Ltd., and he was working as cutting worker at their ware house and drawing salary of Rs.6000/- per month. It is the case of the appellant that on 9.11.1999 at about 11.00 a.m. while he was in the employment, he met with an accident, that a iron rope was cut off and piece of iron rope hit his left eye deeply and due to which he lost the left eye and lot of blood came out from the left eye and the co-workers took him to the Jayasri Hospitals and one Dr.Jayabalan gave first aid and removed the iron piece from the left eye. Then he was admitted to the Government eye Hospital on 28.4.1999.

3. The defence of the respondent is total denial of applicant's employment under them.

4. The following substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration in this Second Appeal:

1. Even though the appellant proved his case beyond doubt through P.W.2, one Mr. Srinivasan, the Manager of the respondent, dismissed the claim petition is against law?

2. The date of injuries was proved by the appellant through documentary and oral evidence, by the learned Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition on the ground the injuries sustained before the accident is against Natural justice?

5. In order to prove his contention the appellant brought one Srinivasan P.W.2, who claims that he was working as Superintendent under Opposite Party from 1995 to 2001. He would say that when he was working as Supervisor in the Opposite Party concern, the appellant was also working there, that he was doing the work of cutting iron ropes and packing, that he suffered injury in his eye and that even though the applicant was not attending to work, the company had given him Rs.1500 per month. In the cross examination he says that he does not know anything about the nature of work done by the appellant. Even the appellant has neither stated in the application nor in his evidence that he was getting Rs.1500/- per month from the company. The evidence of P.W.2 is not convincing and satisfactory. He has not given the particulars of nature of work allotted to the applicant. If he were a supervisor of the company, he would have known to some extent about the nature of work of the applicant. The evidence of P.W.2 does not support the case of the applicant.

6. P.W.3 Dr. Rajappa would say that he examined the applicant on 20.9.2003. He was informed by the applicant that he sustained injury in his eye on 9.4.99 in a road traffic accident and from 28.4.99 till 4.5.99 he took treatment in Egmore Eye Hospital. He is of the opinion that the applicant has lost the vision in the left eye and he assessed the permanent disability at 40%. Ex.P.5 is the Disability Certificate given by P.W.2. In the cross examination it is seen that the appellant himself informed him that on 9.4.99 he met with an road traffic accident. He also says that in Ex.A.1 discharge summary issued by the Government Hospital, the particulars as to the said road traffic accident was not mentioned. Further, he says as per Serial No.26 of Schedule I of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the disability is only 30%.

7. The director of respondent company, who examined himself as R.W.1, produced the Attendance Register and Wage Register maintained in his premises for April 1999 which are Exs.R.3 and R.4 respectively. In these registers the name of the applicant was not found. R.W.1 also says that the Inspector of Factory on 7.4.99 inspected the above said registers and signed. He denies that P.W.2 Srinivasan was supervisor in the company.

8. This Court has gone through the oral testimony of the witnesses and scrutinsed the evidence. There is no scintilla of evidence to show that the applicant was employed by