<atet. HIGH COUOT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No. 1030 of 2005 AppeUant Thaneswar Prasad Shanna, S/o Late Shri Visambhar Dayal Sharaia, aged about 45 ycars, R/o ViBage- Khaira, . Post - Jairaannagar, Thana- Masturi, Distnct- Bflaspur (C.G.). Veraus Respoiident Vyasnarayan Gond, S/o Nafhuram Goiid, aged about 30 years, R/o Jmramnagar (Khair^, Thaiia- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). DB: Hon'ble ShriJustice S. R. Nayak, C.J. & Hon'bte Shri Justice Satish K. ^mhotri, J. Mr. Vinay Paiuley, Advocate for fhe appdlant Mr. M. P. S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent ORAL ORDER (l2tfa December 2005) The foUowiag oider of the Court was passed by S. R. Wayak, C.J. 1. In ttus appeal preferred by the einployer, fhe oaty contention itiged by leacucd counsel for fhe appeUant is fhat fhe respondcnt/claimant has faited to establish Bdationship of fhe employer and einployee and fherefore, he is not entMcd for compensation ia tenns of the Workjnen's Conipensatfon Act, 1923 (for short 'fhe Act, 1923^. We have pemsed the impugned award. Thc contention of learaed counsel for fhe appellant is not weU-founded. Though it was contEtided by f- leamed couasel for thc appeBant fhat fhe claimant/respondent has not produced aay evidencc whatsoever to sliow that he was einptoyed by the appellaat and he sustaiaed injuries in the coursc of emptoyiaent, we could see fhat fhe claimaTit/respondent has examiaed GSK 2. witaesses and aB offhem in their deposition have stated fhat fbs claimant/respondent waa eiaployed by fhe appcUaat in his oil miU. It is truc fhat the respcadent has not produced aay dociuaentaiy cvidcnce obviousty because fhe cmploycr/appeUant was not maintaiaing any register. It has come in fhe eviderice of fhe appcllant/einplcyer fhat hc is not mamtainmg any register or records. If fhe appeBant/einployer has not naaintained any register or records, fhe clauaant/respondent producing dociunentaiy evidence m. support of his einployinent would not arise. Be fhat as it inay, nofhing is shown to us to doubt dcpositions of five witoesses of the claimaat, who deiwsed before fhe Commissioner fhat fhe claimant was employed in the oU miU and he sustained injurics in the coiuse ofemployment. It is quite oflten said and reiterated fhat the findings offacts recorded by the Commissioner caiuiot Ughtfy be disturbed or upset untess wei^a.ty or substantivc ground is inade out and the appeQsLte Court is satisfied fhat the findia^s recorded by the Coinmissioner sufifer fioia aay iUegaHly. No such ground is made out. No ofher ground is uiged before us w]ute questioning fhe correctoess of the impugtied awaid. Thc appcal is devoid ofmerit and it is disinissed. No costs. Sd/- fchief Justice Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHOTRI Judge ,.il:s'...r