1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1157/2005 Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another. vs. Surendra Singh Date : 19.9.2005 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. A Chhangani, for the appellants. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment/award dated 5.3.2005 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Churu. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/ respondent submitted a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner alleging that while he was working on 33 KV GSS Line, he met with an accident and he fell down and because of that injury, his right hand was amputed, therefore, he is entitled for compensation from the employer/appellant. Before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, the appellants took a plea that the respondent was not in employment of the appellants and it was submitted that the respondent worked with the appellants upto 20.7.1996 and on 6.9.1996, he was not in employment. The Workmen's 2 Compensation Commissioner considered the evidence produced by the parties and thereafter recorded a finding of fact that the claimant was in employment of the appellants and, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay the compensation amount. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants produced the musteroll which clearly shows that the respondent was not in employment on 6.9.1996, therefore, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has committed a serious error of fact in holding that the respondent was in employment on 6.9.1996. It is also submitted that contrary to the documentary evidence, oral evidence was relied upon by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, which is also wrong. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the facts in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the respondent was in employment and he worked upto 20.7.1996. Despite this fact, the appellants did not produce any order of appointment of the employee nor they produced any order of termination of his service or for asking him not to come on duty even. Not only this, but the incident itself is self explanatory that he was working on 33 KV GSS Line and while doing so, he met with an accident. In such circumstances, such a finding of fact cannot be interfered in Section 30 of the Workmen's 3 Compensation Commissioner Act as there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. In view of the above, this appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya