JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:

2. The instant appeal arises out of an award made by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner & Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P. Ghaziabad Region, Ghaziabad in Case No. W.C. 239/2009 (Sri Yamin v. M/s. Saini @ Private Ltd. and another) on 19.6.2013 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ((hereinafter referred to as W.C. Act).

3. By Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2009 (45 of 2009) nomenclature of the Act has been amended by substituting the word ''Employee's'' for the word ''Workmen's'' (w.e.f. 18.1.2010). Now the Act stands as THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 (8 of 1923) (Came into force on 1.7.1924). In this view the Workmen's Compensation Act shall be referred to as Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ''E.C. Act.'').

4. The appeal has been filed by the insurance company. Cross objections have been raised on behalf of the claimants-respondents.

II. Findings in the impugned award

5. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner found these facts in the impugned award. The deceased worked as a helper and tasked to clean the truck. The deceased received his wages from the truck owner and worked under his orders. The employer did not contest the employer employee relationship between former and the deceased. The deceased died of injuries sustained in an accident while he was travelling in the truck on 27/28.6.2006. The death happened during the course of employment and arose out of employment of the deceased with the insured. The income of the deceased determined by the Workmen's Commissioner is Rs. 2714.56/- per month.

6. On the fateful day the truck stood duly insured by the appellant insurance company which was found liable to pay the compensation. The learned Workmen's Commissioner awarded compensation depicted in tabulated form hereunder:

III. Submissions of learned counsels

7. Sri B.C. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contends that employee-employer relationship was not established and is a substantial question of law.

8. This Court finds that impugned order reflects full application of mind to the material and impeccable appraisal of evidences in the record which show that the deceased was in the employ of the insured. He drew his salary from the employer and worked directly under the orders of the latter. All ingredients of employer employee relationship are matters of fact which were established before Tribunal by credible evidence. There is no infirmity in these findings nor any perversity could be pointed out. No substantial question of law arises from these findings of facts as regards employer employee relationship.

9. Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents presses the cross objections. It is contended that the compensation was not granted in adherence to the statutory provisions.

10. Initial objections of the appellant to the maintainability of cross objections were fairly waived by the appellant insurance company after arguments. The cross objections are held to be maintainable since they disclose fault lines in the