The learned Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur, who was the authority under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter called the Act raised four issues and on finding that the appellant had failed to prove that he was in the employment of the respondent at the relevant point of time and had sustained the injuries in the companyrse of employment, dismissed his claim.
On 26 7 1984 while he was working he sustained personal injury which resulted in the loss of both his hands just above the wrists resulting in permanent disability with 100 per cent functional loss.
The appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur, whose decision came to be affirmed by the learned Single Judge in the High Court and the Division Bench did number see any valid reason to entertain the letters patent appeal.
The respondent companytested the claim by companytending that the appellant was number his employee that he had number sustained the injury while operating the machine on his farm and that he had number suffered injury in the companyrse of employment.
It is indeed true that he did number possess any letter of appointment number did he possess any documentary evidence to show that a certain payment was being made to him for the work taken from him.
The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under The appellant claims that he was the workman on the farms of the respondent.
110 of 1988 which was heard by a learned Single Judge.
He alleged that he was earning a salary of Rs.
Aggrieved by this decision rendered by the learned Senior Sub Judge, the appellant preferred a first appeal from Order No.
360 per month besides meal, etc.
Special leave granted.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
