Judgment :- 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 29.12.2004 passed in W.C.No.146 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-II/Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Madras-6. 2. When the appeal came up on 29.03.2005, this Court has admitted the same, on the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the context of agreement Ex.B5, which had been proved through a witness, can it be said that the respondent was not a contractor and hence the Workmen Compensation Act will not apply? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case can it be said that the accident arose out and in the course of employment, when the respondent was engaged only to erect the lift and therefore had no reason to get in contact with electrical board, in the next building? 3. Whether the respondent in any event is not disentitled to any compensation on the principle of aided peril (i.e., a situation brought about by himself)? 4. Whether without any evidence the Workmen Compensation Authority was justified in coming to the respondent was drawing a salary of Rs.4,500/- when Ex.B5 agreement shows he was a contractor and the lumpsum payments of Rs.9,500 and Rs.25,000, were given and they were corroborated by bank statements Ex.B2? 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellant is running a business in the name and style of "ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED" for selling and fixing the lift. The claimant/injured herein, was working as a labour under the appellant. The said injured met with an accident on 15.12.2003 at about 04.30 P.M. He was sent to District Court, New Court Complex Building Gulbarga, Karnataka State, for the purpose of fixing the lift. While he was erecting the lift at the premises of District Court, New Court Complex Building, Gulbarga, he was electrocuted. Due to the impact he sustained grievous injuries and several burns in his both hands and chest. Immediately, he was given first aid at Government Hospital, Gulbarga, and later, he was referred to private hospital at Gulbarga. Subsequently, he was brought to Government Hospital, Chennai, and referred to K.M.C. Hospital, Chennai. Due to the impact he sustained grievous injuries and several burns in his both hands and chest. Immediately, he was given first aid at Government Hospital, Gulbarga, and later, he was referred to private hospital at Gulbarga. Subsequently, he was brought to Government Hospital, Chennai, and referred to K.M.C. Hospital, Chennai. He filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-II/Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Madras-6, claiming compensation of R.3,00,000/-. The appellant herein, resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour framed the following issues: “1. Whether the claimant sustained injury during the course of employment or not? 2. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom?" After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy commissioner of Labour held that that accident had occurred only during the course of employment and awarded compensation of Rs.2,36,472/- and the computation of the above are as under: 1. Age = 35 years 2. Relevant factor = 197.06 3. Monthly salary = Rs.4,000/- 4. Loss of earning capacity = 50% 5. Computation of compensation = 60/100x4000x197.06X50/100 =Rs.2,36,472/- Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has filed the present appeal raising the above substantial questions of law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that they are not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the claimant was not the workmen under the appellant and further contended that the claimant was the contractor based on the agreement signed between the appellant and the claimant. Based on that, he was sent to Gulbarga for the purpose of erecting the lift at the premises of District Court, New Court Complex Building, Gulbarga. Further, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour awarded excessive, exorbitant compensation and also without any basis and justification. Therefore, the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly held that the claimant is the workmen under the appellant and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 6. Heard the counsel. Therefore, the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr.Thiagarajan. Ex.P1 is the letter of M/S ECE Industries Limited dated 21.07.2003, Ex.P2 is the Pachveswar Hospital Chit, Ex.P3 is the discharge summary from K.M.C. Hospital, Ex.P4 is the stamp paper, Ex.P5 is the advocate notice, Ex.P6 is the consent card, Ex.P7 is the disability certificate were marked. On the side of the appellant, R.W.1 Thiru.S.Suryanarayanan, who is the Operation Manager of the appellant company and R.W.2 is one Thirupathi Project Engineer of the appellant company were examined and EX.R1 is the agreement dated 20.11.2002, EX.R2 is the statement of accounts of the claimant, EX.R3 is the voucher, EX.R4 is the attendance register, EX.R5 is the agreement, EX.R6 is the approval letter, were marked. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner was of the view that the accident had occurred only during the course of employment and awarded compensation. 7. It is pertinent to note that Ex.R1 to R5-agreements, are filed by the appellant. According to the appellant these agreements are entered into between the appellant and the claimant, wherein, it is stated that the claimant was the Contractor and he was deputed to attend the work of erection of lift at the premises of the District Court, New Court Complex Building, Gulbarga, and he also received the consideration for the same and therefore vehemently contended that the claimant was not at all the workmen under the appellant. P.W.1 is the injured was not at all examined on this issue but R.W.1 who is the Operation Manager was examined. In his evidence, it is stated that he does not know the signature of the claimant in Ex.R1 and R5-agreements. On the contrary, R.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the it is the claimants signature in the abovesaid Exhibits. But however, the Tribunal rejected the same, and holding that the claimant was the workmen under the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the claimant was not the workmen of the appellant and he was also not examined on this point. But however, the Tribunal rejected the same, and holding that the claimant was the workmen under the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the claimant was not the workmen of the appellant and he was also not examined on this point. Therefore, he submitted that the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have rejected his contention and if there is a dispute regarding the handwriting of the claimant, the same should have referred to experts opinion for comparison. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant vehemently contended the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has correctly dismissed the Exhibits of the appellant on the ground that there is no proper evidence available on record and came to the right conclusion that the claimant was the workmen under the appellant. Now, the issue is whether the claimant was entered and signed in the agreements or not but, the claimant was not examined on this aspect. It is also pertinent to note that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour himself determined the disability at 50% without the evidence of the doctor and P.W.2 doctor has also not given any finding that 50% disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant. 9. After taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court is of evidence to support the view that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ought to have examined the claimant or he may refer the matter for experts opinion or he may himself compare and decide the same in accordance with law. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is set aside with the direction to rehear the matter afresh after giving opportunities to both parties to enable them to produce material their case and also consider the issue in respect of the signature of the claimant and decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. It is also made clear that the deposited award amount will continue to be in the deposit till the disposal of this matter and both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to dispose of the matter without taking unnecessary adjournment. 10. with the above directions, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.