THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.195 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed Case No.WC/32/2000 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II claiming compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him while in employment. He pleaded that he was engaged by the respondents on daily wage basis to work in the course of erection of a lift in Bhavana Apartments, Anandnagar Colony, Hyderabad. He stated that while curing the wall on 19.01.1997, he fell from a height of 50 feet and received several injuries. The respondents are said to have got him treated and thereafter appointed him as Watchman on monthly wages of Rs.1500/-. He claims a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. On receipt of notice, the respondents pleaded that they are not the employers, much less did they engage the appellant. They have stated that except that they are the owners of individual flats in the complex, they do not have any other relation. The plea of the appellant that he fell from a height of 50 feet was denied. According to them, the appellant has fallen from a height of about 10 feet and the minor injuries that were sustained by him were treated in Gandhi Hospital and out of sympathy, the flat owners made a contribution of Rs.5,000/- in all. The Tribunal dismissed the case through order, dated 16.04.2001, holding that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and the respondents and that no injuries worth being taken note of were sustained by him. Hence, this appeal. The matter was listed on number of occasions for hearing. There was no representation for the appellant. Smt. R.Annapurna, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that respondent No.1 is no more. This Court has perused the record. The appellant did not adduce any evidence worth its name to establish that he was employed by the respondents. The plea of the respondents that they are the owners of the flats and that they never employed the appellant stood unrebutted. Further, even according to the appellant, he was only a daily wage worker and sustained certain injuries in the course of work. The Commissioner recorded a finding to the effect that the injuries said to have been received by him are so minor that he was treated as outpatient and the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act are not attracted at all. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:09.11.2011. kdl