JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal by the original claimant. 2. The facts giving rise to the claim under Workmen's Compensation Act are as follows: The claimant was engaged as a Khalasi by the South-Eastern Railway in the year 1962. Later he was transferred to Diesel Shed M. T. B. as a Diesel Cleaner. The record of the claimant is unblemished. It is contended that the claimant developed an allergy of diesel and its fumes. Initially the claimant when he was young did not bother much but later he was required to take treatment and was not keeping well. The claimant had approached one Dr. B. D. Mehta for examination and he concluded that claimant was suffering from deformity which he has developed due to continuous contact with diesel. It was also found by the said doctor that he should not work in hot place and should work in cool place. This fact was communicated to the respondent but nothing was done. Applicant thereafter had contacted one Dr. Chiwhane but the condition did not improve. He even was referred by the Medical Officer of the Railways to their main Hospital at Calcutta. It was found that he was having allergy of diesel. Due to this allergy it is alleged that he has suffered disfigurement of face and damage in liver as well as kidney. It may be due to the allergy of diesel. The claimant's salary was Rs. 2150/- P. M. He claimed Rs. 76,510/- towards compensation. 3. Application was resisted by the respondents. It had denied all the allegations made by the claimant. It is contended that it is not an occupational disease. Therefore the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the plaintiff suffers from allergy. 4. Learned Commissioner found that the allergy suffered by the claimant could not be treated as an occupational disease and therefore he was not entitled to any compensation. Being aggrieved by that this appeal has been preferred. 5. I have heard the counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. The material question is whether the allergic condition from which the claimant suffers could be said to be an occupational disease. If the answer to this is in the affirmative the claimant must be held to be entitled to compensation. 6. Learned Commissioner has in fact found that claimant suffers from allergy of diesel. None appears for the respondents. The material question is whether the allergic condition from which the claimant suffers could be said to be an occupational disease. If the answer to this is in the affirmative the claimant must be held to be entitled to compensation. 6. Learned Commissioner has in fact found that claimant suffers from allergy of diesel. It is not disputed that claimant was working in a diesel shed and was coming in contact with diesel. The learned Commissioner had elaborately dealt with the evidence with regard to the allergic condition due to coming into contact with the diesel. It is clear from the documents placed on record i.e. Certificates issued by Dr. Chiwhane that claimant suffers from allergy of diesel. The employer had examined one Dr. Prasad to prove that the claimant does not have an allergy of diesel. Though D. W. 2 Prasad states so, it must be said that he had gone out of way in denying that the claimant has allergy of diesel. He has even gone further in issuing a certificate to that effect which I must say is patently false. His own reference letters Ex. 46 to 50 belie him. He himself writes in his reference letter (written to Senior Divisional Medical Officer) that patient suffers from allergy of diesel. It could therefore not lie in the mouth of the Railways to say that claimant was not suffering from allergy of diesel. Certificate of Dr. Chiwhane Ex. 31 and 32 together with Ex. 46 and 50 clearly established that claimant suffers from diesel allergy. It is not disputed that the claimant comes into contact of diesel since he works in diesel shed. This finding even otherwise is not challenged by filing cross objection or during the course of the argument before this Court since none appears for respondents. That must be said to be conclusive. 7. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act says that if any person contracts any disease as an occupational disease it should be treated as an injury and the claimant or employee would be entitled to compensation. If Sub Section 2 of Section 3 is read it is manifestly clear that occupational disease must be peculiar to that employment. It means whosoever is in that particular employment is likely to contract a peculiar type of disease. If Sub Section 2 of Section 3 is read it is manifestly clear that occupational disease must be peculiar to that employment. It means whosoever is in that particular employment is likely to contract a peculiar type of disease. All persons under such employment could be said therefore to be prone to contract such disease due to handling or coming in contact of such substance or inhaling it. The disease therefore becomes an occupational disease when contracting of such peculiar disease could be attributed to a job done by the employee or the material metal etc. used in that factory. In the instant case none of the 500 persons except claimant has been proved to have any kind of ailment due to coming into contact of the diesel. Of none else has suffered similar kind of ailment, it could not be said that it is an occupational disease. A disease could be said to be an occupational diesease, if number of employees suffer from such disease on that establishment. Since none else except the claimant, suffers, it cannot be said to be an occupational disease. On the other hand, it could be said that contracting of such disease is peculiar to claimant and is not a common phenomena. If it is to become an occupational disease it has to be a common phenomena. That is not so. Learned Commissioner has rightly appreciated the law and evidence. There is no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.