(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1272 OF 2009 Shradha Electrical Engineering Company, .. Appellant Prop. Amit s/o. Pandharinath Kanthewad, (Original R/o. Shradha Niwas, Hanuman Gad, Nanded. respondent no.2) versus Vanita w/o. Gautam Narwade & others. .. Respondents (Nos.1 to 3 - original petitioners & Nos.4 & 5 - original respondent nos.1 & 3) ....................... Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 22ND MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. (2) 2. The award dated 3rd November 2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Ex-officio Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Nanded, fixing responsibility of the present appellant, jointly and severally, to pay compensation of Rs. 1,90,611/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of accident i.e. 9-2-2004, and respondent no.2 of the said petition (Shradha Electrical Engineering Company, Nanded), to pay the amount to respondent nos.1 or 3, which amount will be paid to the original claimant, is questioned by Shradha Electrical Engineering Company, Nanded, through its proprietor. 3. Mr. Vijay Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits, since the original contract at Exhibit 66 would clearly show that the said work of carrying the activities at village Wadachiwadi was recorded to M/s. Pawan Electricals, Nanded, the said firm being distinct entity having no connection with the appellant herein, the findings of the learned Judge are simply based on surmises and conjunctures and being not on legally admissible evidence, needs consideration. 4. The learned Judge, while dispelling the contentions agitated by the present appellant, which was also advanced before the learned Judge, has recorded the effect of Section 12 (3) and the documentary evidence and particularly reply to the notice at Exhibit 44 sent by the present appellant through its proprietor, Amit Kanthewad. In the said reply to the claimant, in unequivocal terms, the appellant accepted having carried the work and deceased Gautam to be an employee of the present appellant. The learned Judge having considered effect of Section 12, no substantial question of law, as is envisaged under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act could be said to be projected in the First Appeal. 5 Consequently, there is no merit in the First Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/fa1272