J. K. Mehra. J. ( 1 ) I have heard Counsel for the parties. Theappellant has made two points : (1) that the finding of existence of employer-employee relation is totally without any legal evidence and that (2) thecommissioner under the Workmen s Compensation Act, Delhi had nojurisdiction to entertain the petition, when admittedly the accident resultingin the injury had taken place in the State of Haryana. Mr. Raj Birbalappearing for the respondent states that as far as jurisdiction was concernedit was a consent order between the partics. The appellant contends thatsubmission in the proceedings was without prejudice to the plea that thecommissioner had no territorial jurisdiction over the matter and that thecommissioner has wrongly usurped the jurisdiction, ( 2 ) I have heard the Counsel for the parties at length and I findthat both these objections appear to be correct. However, in view of thefact that the insurance had already joined the proceedings before the Commissioner and deposited the entire amount of compensation awarded, it willnot be equitable to disturb the finding on this question and I would allow theorder to remain undisturbed to that extent. However, on the question ofemployer-employee relation and award of penalty against the petitioner, Ihave perused the impugned judgment and the only reason whereon the Commissioner appears to have based his conclusion of the existence of employer-employee relations between the appellant and the workman is furnishing ofthe appellant s address as his address on his driving licence without anyfurther information. There is no other evidence mentioned in the impugnedorder in this connection. It is not disputed that the truck was owned by onebaljit Singh and the injured person was driving the truck of Baljit Singh. There is also no evidence that such a truck had been given to the petitioneron some arrangement whereby it was plying under the supervision andcontrol of the petitioner, nor is there any evidence produced or discussed inthe order which would suggest that injured workman was otherwise workingunder the direct supervision and control of the appellant. In the absence ofany such evidence, I feel that the Commissioner has committed a seriouserror in reaching such conclusion without any legal evidence to establishrelationship of employer-employee. It may further be clarified that even todayno appointment letter of any record of attendance has been produced beforeme. In the circumstances, I hold that the findings in this behalf are unsustainable and are set aside. It may further be clarified that even todayno appointment letter of any record of attendance has been produced beforeme. In the circumstances, I hold that the findings in this behalf are unsustainable and are set aside. Since the penalty can be charged only from theemployer the consequence of the above decision is that the amount ofpenalty could not foisted on the appellant. It will, however, be open to theinjured workman to pursue his rights in this connection against his ownemployer after proving his relationship as employee with whosoever he wasemployed with. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set asideto the extent stated above. No further order is called for. The appeal standsdisposed of in the above terms.