JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J.
1. Claimant who claimed to be in the employment of respondent and having suffered an injury during the course of employment and arising out of an employment has felt aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition filed by him under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act by the impugned award dated August 31, 1999 in Claim Case No. 5/W.C.N.F./96 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and has come to this Court in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. While rejecting the claim petition, the learned Commissioner on appreciation of evidence led by parties came to a conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove that he was ever employed by the respondent or that he was at any point of time in his employment much less at a monthly salary of Rs. 1500/- as alleged by the claimant. While coming to this conclusion, the learned Commissioner held that the claimant has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that he was in the employment of respondent, such as appointment letter, pay-slip, to show that he actually was in the employment. The learned Commissioner then on the basis of oral evidence led by parties came to a conclusion on its appreciation that the evidence tendered does not prove that claimant was in the employment of respondent and that too on the date of accident in question. This finding led to dismissal of claim petition - it being a sine-qua-non for entertaining the claim petition under Section 10 ibid.
3. Having heard the parties, I have come to the conclusion that appeal has no force and must be dismissed. To hold in favour of appellant (claimant) in this appeal means re-appreciation of oral evidence tendered by the parties. It is not just possible for me to undertake this exercise in an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act because in Section 30 appeal, only question of law can be examined and not questions of fact. Whether claimant (appellant herein) was in the employment of respondent or not was debated on oral evidence before the Commissioner and learned Commissioner by impugned order, held against the claimant (appellant herein). It is this finding which is assailed in this appeal.
4. I have also perused the oral evidence of claimant to satisfy myself as to whether he could be held to be in the employment of respondent. I do not think it is possible. The evidence of other witnesses - Gajraj Singh examined by the claimant does not support the version of claimant. It shows that he was working with one Narendra Sharma. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that why should claimant file a false claim against respondent does not appeal to me. By this inference, I cannot draw a conclusion that contract of employment has emerged. To prove a contract of employment, there has to be a direct evidence to show some nexus between the claimant and the respondent. This can be of any kind such as appointment letter, monthly payment slip, deduction of PF, payment of any dues which would show that he was in the employment, any correspondence wherein the respondent has admitted that claimant was in his employment. In substance, the Courts are in favour of documentary evidence to record a definite finding on such type of issue. They are the best piece of evidence for coming to a conclusion one way or other.
5. To decide this issue on oral evidence requires elaborate appreciation of evidence as observed supra. Nevertheless, in my limited jurisdiction I did go into this issue, but failed in coming to a conclusion in favour of claimant. The accident may be unfortunate for him but one cannot help if the law does not permit.
6. Looking to the totality of evidence, finding recorded, and the parameters fixed under 5 Section 30 ibid, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost.