N. Authinathan, J.

1. These appeals arose out of the order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai.

2. Nagarajan/claimant [appellant in C.M.A. No. 2294 of 2013 and respondent in C.M.A. No. 2535 of 2014] made a claim for compensation against the Central Leather Research Institute [respondent in C.M.A. No. 2294 of 2013 and appellant in C.M.A. No. 2535 of 2014].

3. The case of the claimant is that, he was an Air Conditioner Technician and employed in Central Leather Research Institute [hereinafter referred as C.L.R.I.]. On 05.09.1998, in the course of his employment, a cutting plier, which was used for the work fell on his left eye and as a result of which, he sustained injury. Immediately, he was taken to a Doctor attached to C.L.R.I. He was referred to Government Eye Hospital for further treatment. According to him, he has undergone eye surgeries thrice at Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai. He claimed a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He filed the claim petition in the year 2007 with a petition to condone the delay in filing the claim petition.

4. Admittedly, the delay in filing the petition was condoned and the claim petition was taken on file. C.L.R.I. filed a counter statement resisting the claim of the claimant stating that there was no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and C.L.R.I. They have also taken a stand that no liability lies against C.L.R.I. as the injury dating back to 1998. According to them, C.L.R.I. have no records to show that the claimant sustained injury on the premises of C.L.R.I.

5. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, the claimant examined himself as PW-1. He has marked 7 Exhibits. He has also examined a Doctor/Eye Surgeon [PW-2]. On behalf of C.L.R.I. one of its Scientists was examined [RW-1]. They have marked 10 Exhibits. After considering the materials made available, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I found that the claimant was an employee of C.L.R.I. and the accident had taken place in the course of employment and awarded a compensation of Rs. 45,989/-.

6. The claimant preferred C.M.A. No. 2294 of 2013 for enhancement of the compensation. Challenging the finding on the question of liability, C.L.R.I. preferred C.M. No. 2535 of 2014.

7. The case of the C.L.R.I. is that they are not liable to pay the compensation, as there was no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and C.L.R.I. It is to be seen that whether the relationship of employer-employee existed between the claimant and C.L.R.I. on the date of accident. The learned counsel for the C.L.R.I. would submit that in the official records, there is no indication to show that the claimant was employed by them on the date of accident. Ex.P.2 is the Acquittance Register pertaining to permanent employees from August 1998. The accident occurred on 05.09.1998. The contention of the C.L.R.I. is that, as the name of the claimant does not find a place in the Acquittance Register, he cannot be taken as an employee of C.L.R.I.

8. The learned counsel for the C.L.R.I. pointed out that the Industrial Tribunal in its award in 31/08 has held that the claimant was not a workman of C.L.R.I. Ex.R.10 is the copy of the award of the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the claimant filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal and the same is pending. As the award has not attained finality, I am inclined to place any reliance on the award to hold that the claimant was not an employee on the date of accident.

9. Ex.P.1 is the Certificate issued by a Scientist of C.L.R.I. It is dated 26.11.1999. Ex.P.2 is the Certificate issued by a Scientist in-charge of A/C Department. It is dated 07.08.2002. Ex.P.1 Certificate would clearly show that the claimant was working on contract basis since 04.08.1997 in C.L.R.I. and he was engaged in the maintenance of Air Conditioners. Ex.P.2 would show that the claimant was working on contract basis since 26.11.1999 in C.L.R.I. These Certificates