Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 4.7.2007 made in W.C.No.359/2006 by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner-II/Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai. 2. The Respondent/Claimant filed the above case claiming a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him contending that on 16.8.2004 at about 9.15 p.m., while he was working in the I Floor of the Construction Site of the Appellant at Indira Nagar Railway Station as an overtime worker, he slipped and fell down on the ground and sustained injuries. 3. It is the case of the Claimant that he was working as ‘Perial’ in the construction site of the Appellant/Employer for more than one year and he was paid a sum of Rs.200/- per day as wages. According to the Claimant, the accident took place in the course of his employment with the Appellant and when he was carrying on the work as Perial at the workspot, he slipped and fell down and sustained injuries. He sent a legal notice dated 15.6.2006, demanding the Appellant to settle the claim, but in spite of receipt of the said notice, the Appellant failed to settle the claim and therefore, he had filed this Claim Petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (herein after referred to as the Act). 4. The Appellant resisted the claim by filing Counter, contending that the Claimant was never employed by them at any point of time and there is no employee and employer relationship between the Claimant and the Appellant. They also denied that the Claimant was paid a sum of Rs.200/- per day as wages for the past one year and he met with an accident when he was working with them and suffered 100% disability due to the said accident. Therefore, it is contended that the Claimant is not entitled to claim any compensation under the Act. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, inquiry was conducted before the Authority, wherein two witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked on behalf of the Claimant. On behalf of the Appellant/Employer, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II held that the Claimant was a workman under the Appellant. In regard to the quantum of compensation, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II determined the disability suffered by the Claimant at 55%. On behalf of the Appellant/Employer, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II held that the Claimant was a workman under the Appellant. In regard to the quantum of compensation, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II determined the disability suffered by the Claimant at 55%. Taking note of the income of the Claimant as Rs.4,000/- p.m., fixed the quantum at Rs.2,95,680/-Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Employer. 6. Mr. P. Valliappa, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Claimant is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act, as he was never employed by the Appellant at any point of time and hence, there was no employee and employer relationship between the Claimant and the Appellant. The learned Counsel further contended that the Claimant was not engaged for the purpose of any trade or business, so as to bring him within the purview of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act and consequently, the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable for the purpose of granting compensation to the Claimant. 7. On the other hand, Mr. P.D. Selvaraj, the learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned award contending that the award does not suffer from any legal infirmity and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. 8. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side and perused the impugned judgment and the materials placed on record. 9. The contentions raised by the Appellant before this Court were already raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II and the same were answered by him in the negative. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. It is well settled that in an Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act, the High Court should not interfere with the award passed by the Authority, when there is no question of law involved. It is consistently held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Primary Authority, only when the same is based on no evidence or insufficient evidence. The findings of the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II has been challenged regarding the employment of workman contending that there is no employee and employer relationship between the Claimant and the Appellant. The findings of the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II has been challenged regarding the employment of workman contending that there is no employee and employer relationship between the Claimant and the Appellant. The question which had arisen for consideration is of arguable in nature, as it is the contention of the Appellant that the said findings is based on lack of appreciation of evidence and based on conjecture and surmises. Therefore, such question of law for the purpose of Section 30 of the Act will be maintainable and it has to be determined in this Appeal. 10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II is not justified in saddling the liability upon the Appellant, when the Claimant had failed to prove his contention that he worked for the Appellant and the accident took place during the course of his employment with the Appellant. For this purpose, a reading of the main part of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act is relevant, which is extracted here under: “(n) ‘workman’ means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business)…” 11. As per Section 2(1)(n) of the Act, it must be held that even a causal worker is a workman provided that he is engaged by the employer for the purpose of its trade or business. The learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to contend that there was no employee and employer relationship between the Claimant and the Appellant and the Claimant was never employed by the Appellant. It is the specific case of the Claimant that he was employed as a “Perial” by one Ramesh, who was working as a Supervisor in the Appellant-Constructions and he was receiving wages from the said Supervisor. The said evidence was not assailed by the Appellant by eliciting answers to discredit his evidence. 12. Ex.A1, AIR copy and A2-Charge Sheet issued by the Government Hospital, Vellore show that the Claimant fell down from height and sustained grievous injuries. In Ex.A4-Discharge Summary issued by the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, it is stated that the injured fell down from three storey building and sustained fracture. 12. Ex.A1, AIR copy and A2-Charge Sheet issued by the Government Hospital, Vellore show that the Claimant fell down from height and sustained grievous injuries. In Ex.A4-Discharge Summary issued by the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, it is stated that the injured fell down from three storey building and sustained fracture. The Claimant has issued a notice dated 15.6.2006 specifically stating that he was working as a “Perial” in the Appellant-Constructions for one year one he was paid a sum of Rs.200/- per day as wages and that while he was working in the 3rd storey in the constructions site at Indira Nagar Railway Station as an overtime worker, he slipped and fell down on the ground and sustained fracture shaft of femur in left leg, fracture of medial malliolus in left leg and other multiple injuries. It is further stated that immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Royapettah where he was an inpatient from 16.8.2004 to 30.8.2004 and thereafter, he was admitted in the CMC Hospital, Vellore from 1.9.2004. 13. The Claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.10/- lakhs as compensation in the said legal notice. In spite of receipt of the said notice by the Appellant, they have not chosen to send any reply. Ex.A9-Ambulance Bill is the crucial document, which shows that the services of JT Ambulance was utilised by the Appellant for shifting the Claimant from Government Hospital, Royapattah to Vellore CMC Hospital, for which a sum of Rs.2,300/- has been paid as ambulance charges by the Appellant. This document has not been impeached in any manner during the cross-examination of the Claimant who examined himself as PW.1. this document clearly and amply demonstrates that since the Claimant was employed by the Appellant as “Perial”, they have not only arranged for the Ambulance services, but also paid the Ambulance Service charges. There is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the Appellant to substantiate their contention that the Claimant was not employed by them and there was no employee and employer relationship between the Claimant and the Appellant. Nothing is brought out to discredit the evidence adduced by the Claimant both oral and documentary and also there is nothing to suggest that the Claimant was not employed with the Appellant. Nothing is brought out to discredit the evidence adduced by the Claimant both oral and documentary and also there is nothing to suggest that the Claimant was not employed with the Appellant. Though it is specifically stated by the Claimant that one Ramesh who was working as a Supervisor in the Appellant-Constructions, had been paying the wages to the Claimant, but the same is not disputed by the Appellant nor any evidence adduced to show that no such person by name Ramesh worked as a Supervisor in their concern. 14. It cannot be disputed that the Claimant sustained injuries when he was working at the construction site of the Appellant as medical records supports the said version. PW.1, the Claimant has deposed that when he was preparing concrete mixture for the construction purposes at the third story, the owner asked him to come down and while he was coming down, he slipped and fell down and sustained injuries. It is pertinent to note that the suggestion put to the Claimant that they had arranged for the Ambulance on humanitarian grounds would speak for itself that the Ambulance service was arranged only by the Appellant. In the absence of any contra evidence, it must be presumed that there existed the employee and employer relationship between the Claimant and the Appellant on the date of the accident and therefore, it is held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II has appreciated the evidence in a right and perspective manner and rightly held that there existed employee and employer relationship between the Claimant and the Appellant and that the accident had occurred in the course of his employment with the Appellant. 15. With regard to the quantum, the Claimant was given a daily wages of Rs.200/- per day, but there is no material to prove the income. The Deputy Commissioner-II has taken the salary of the Claimant as Rs.4,000/- p.m., which appears to be just and reasonable, considering the evidence adduced. 16. PW.2-Doctor also has stated that due to the injuries and fractures sustained by the Claimant, there is one inch reduction in his left leg, which resulted in restriction of movements and that there was union of bones at the fracture site and the Claimant would not be able to stretch or fold his knee. 16. PW.2-Doctor also has stated that due to the injuries and fractures sustained by the Claimant, there is one inch reduction in his left leg, which resulted in restriction of movements and that there was union of bones at the fracture site and the Claimant would not be able to stretch or fold his knee. The Claimant having worked as a “Perial” will not be able to do his avocation as he was doing it before, as the injuries and fractures sustained by him would definitely affect his normal physical activities. Considering those aspects, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II assessed the disability at 55% and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,95,680/-. Considering the entire evidence placed on record, the age and avocation of the Claimant, the said compensation awarded by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-II is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court, as there is no merits in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the impugned award is liable to be confirmed. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned award. It is seen from the records that the Appellant had already deposited the entire award amount and the Claimant was permitted to withdraw the balance 50% of the award amount with interest accrued thereon. The Claimant is entitled to withdraw the balance 50% of the award amount with interest accrued thereon. No costs.