Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated dated 05.04.2002 made in W.C. No.144 of 2001 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai. 2. The above appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Lower Authority is justified while awarding the compensation in the absence of any evidence? (ii) Whether the Lower Authority has justified in awarding a sum of Rs.1,51,200/-as compensation in the absence of any evidence? (iii) Whether the findings of the Lower Authority is sustainable on the question of compensation? (iv) Whether the Lower Authority has justified in entertaining the application when the Workmen is not a regular employee? 3. The claimant is the father of the deceased-Manivasagam. He was working as a labour in appellant-Transport Corporation, Tambaram Depot. On 29.07.1998, while the deceased was working in the Depot at that time the bus bearing registration No.T.N.21-N-0291 came into the depot and while the bus taken into reverse dashed against the deceased-Manivasagam and died on the spot. Hence, the father of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai. The Appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. Based on the pleadings, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour framing the following issues: 1. Whether the employee/deceased was died in the course of employment or not? 2. What is the age of the deceased and also what is the wages of the deceased employee? 3. What is the compensation the deceased is entitled to? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner held that the accident was occurred during the course of employment and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,51,200/- Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal awarded a consolidated compensation of Rs.1,51,200/- without any basis and justification. Learned counsel would further submit that the deceased is not a workman, he is only an apprentice. Therefore, he was not eligible to get any compensation . Therefore, the award has to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, he was not eligible to get any compensation . Therefore, the award has to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, Pws 1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The claimant himself examined as PW1 who is father of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P2 is the First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated 02.08.1998. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, one Thiagarajan-RW1, Legal Assistant working in the appellant Transport-Corporation was examined. The appellant also marked Exs.1 and 2. Ex.R1 is the copy of employees application for apprentice. Ex.R2 is the Form – 18. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only in the course of the employment and due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased employee was 22 years. Ex.P2 is the Postmortem Certificate in which the age of the deceased was mentioned as 22 years. In his evidence,RW1 has also stated that the date of birth of the deceased is 210. 1977. After considering the same, the Deputy Commissioner has fixed the age of the deceased as 20 years. In the evidence of PW1 as well as in the application for compensation it was stated that the deceased was earning Rs.2000/- per month. But no documentary evidence was produced to prove the same. In his the evidence-RW2 has stated that the deceased-employee was getting Rs.750/- per month but he has not filed any documentary evidence. In the evidence of PW1 as well as in the application for compensation it was stated that the deceased was earning Rs.2000/- per month. But no documentary evidence was produced to prove the same. In his the evidence-RW2 has stated that the deceased-employee was getting Rs.750/- per month but he has not filed any documentary evidence. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner has arrived at the conclusion that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.45/- per day and determined the monthly income at Rs.1350/- (Rs.45 x 30) on the basis of Minimum Wages Act and determined the compensation as follows: Age of the deceased 20 years Relevant factor 224.00 Monthly Income Rs.1,350/- Compensation 1350 x 224x 50/100 = Rs.1,51,200/- Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in fixing the age as well as the monthly income of the employee-deceased and also adopted the correct relevant factor and determined the loss of income at Rs.1,51,200/-. The learned counsel also unable to point out any error in the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Even though the fourth question was raised to the effect that as to whether the lower authority has justified in entertaining the application when the workmen is not a regular employee, since the deceased was not a regular employee, no issue was framed in respect of the same before the Tribunal. This Court is of the view that the said question cannot be decided before this Court, since it is raised for the first time as it is a question of fact. The finding is based on valid materials and evidence. There is no error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court. It is not a perverse order. It is in accordance with law and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. In these circumstances, the questions raised are answered in favour of the claimant and against the appellant-Transport Corporation. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No.13333 of 2003 is also closed.