Judgment : The appellant / applicant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 02.06.2008, made in W.C.No.225 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The appellant/applicant had filed an application in W.C.No.225 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6, against the opposite party, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, for terminating him from service due to illness sustained by him, which had developed due to the nature of his work under the opposite party. 3. It was submitted that the applicant was working as a Turner under the opposite party from the year 1986 and earning a sum of Rs.4,400/-per month. Due to the nature of his work, he was affected by the illness of 'Sinusitis' in the year 1998. But, in spite of his illness, he continued to do his work. Whileso, the opposite party had terminated his services. It was submitted that due to his illness, he had difficulty in doing work and that he had spent about Rs.50,000/-towards medical expenses. Hence, the applicant had filed the claim petition against the opposite party. 4. The opposite party had filed a counter statement and submitted that the applicant had been working under them only from 04.01.2004 and that he had voluntarily left their services in January 2005 as he had started a firm in the name and style of M/s.Komala Turning Works and that due to loss sustained while running the said firm, the applicant had filed a false claim. It was also submitted that the applicant was paid a monthly salary of Rs.1,400/- and a daily batta of Rs.100/-and that he was not paid a monthly salary of Rs.4,400/- as alleged in the claim petition. 5. It was also submitted that the applicant had filed a case under the Labour Dispute Act in I.D.No.635 of 2005 for the termination of him from service and that a detailed reply had been sent to him in this regard. It was also submitted that the opposite party's firm had been under operation for a long period of time and as such the contentions of the applicant that he had developed illness due to the nature of work done was also false. 6. It was also submitted that the opposite party's firm had been under operation for a long period of time and as such the contentions of the applicant that he had developed illness due to the nature of work done was also false. 6. On considering the averments of both parties, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6, had framed two issues namely: i. Did the applicant develop illness due to the nature of work done by him while doing his duty under the course of employment under the opposite party? and ii. Has the applicant sustained loss of earning capacity? 7. On the side of the applicant, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6 namely copy of employer's register, copy of extract of salary register for the month of November 1998, marriage invitation and photo, prescription, disability certificate and X'ray. On the side of the opposite party, no witness was examined and one document namely inauguration invitation was marked as Ex.R1. 8. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he had worked as a Machine Operator under the opposite party for 18 years and that as he had been exposed to fumes emanating from the machine. He had started to bleed through his nose and mouth and that even if he coughs, bloods starts to come out of his nose and mouth and that due to this he was not able to do his work as usual and hence he was terminated from the services of the respondent from the year 2004. 9. R.W.1 S.Bhaskaran, in his proof affidavit, had stated that he used to give job work to the opposite party's father namely Sundaramurthy and that the applicant joined the opposite party's workshop on 04.01.2004 and that in January 2005, he had left the services of the opposite party as he had started a firm at Asthinapuram in the name and style of Komala Turning Works on 13.02.2005. He had stated further that there was no possibility of bleeding fuming smoke emanating from the machines used at the opposite party's firm and causing bleeding injuries as alleged by the applicant. He further deposed that the applicant had also taken away documents belonging to the opposite party's firm and in support of his evidence he had marked the inaugural invitation of the applicant's firm as Ex.R1. 10. He further deposed that the applicant had also taken away documents belonging to the opposite party's firm and in support of his evidence he had marked the inaugural invitation of the applicant's firm as Ex.R1. 10. P.W.2 Dr.Thiyagarajan had adduced evidence that he had examined the applicant on 03.11.2006 and that as the applicant had inhaled dust and tine particles of iron dust while doing his work, he had persistent cough, which is mixed with blood and that he had taken treatment at four different hospitals. He deposed further that on taking X'rays, it was found that his liver had been affected. He deposed that the applicant had sustained 30% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P5 disability certificate and Ex.P6 X'ray. 11. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.R1, had observed that the applicant in order to start his own firm had left the services of the opposite party. The Tribunal opined that if the applicant had been affected by sinusitis due to the nature of work involved in the opposite party's firm, he would not have started another firm, which involves the same kind of work. The Tribunal opined that due to the experience gained in the opposite party's firm and due to the contacts he had developed while doing his work in the opposite party's firm, the applicant had wanted to start his own firm and make use of his resources. The Tribunal further observed from the marking of the opposite party's salary register that the applicant had taken the documents from the opposite party's firm while leaving the concern. Hence, the Tribunal, on opining that there was no probability of the applicant being inflicted by cough and sinusitis due to the nature of his work under the opposite party, dismissed the claim filed by the applicant. 12. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim, the applicant has preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended in the appeal that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ought not to have decided the claim only with the proof affidavit and the documents filed by the opposite party, who were not made available for cross-examination by the applicant. It is contended that though the medical practitioner had assessed the disability as 30%, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to consider the same while passing the order. 14. It is contended that though the medical practitioner had assessed the disability as 30%, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to consider the same while passing the order. 14. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to consider that the appellant herein had been affected by the nature of work which he was doing after a long period of work. It is contended that the Deputy commissioner ought not to have decided about the non-employment of the appellant, since the claim is only for compensation for the occupational decease suffered by the appellant during his work. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and allow the appeal by granting Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the appellant is healthy and he had started a similar firm separately and running the same. In order to prove the same, the inaugural invitation of the appellant's firm had been marked as Ex.R1. The Doctor is not the competent authority to issue disability certificate since he is neither an ENT specialist nor a specialist in treatment of respiratory problems and as such the disability certificate marked through him is not relevant. Therefore, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour had rightly dismissed the appellant's claim. 16. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on scrutinizing the dismissal order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court is of the view that the applicant had produced Ex.P1, which gives details regarding employee particulars of the employer's unit. It is seen that the applicant had worked as an employee. Besides this, the claimant had marked two salary certificates for the month of November and December, 1988. The Doctor had certified after taking X'ray that the applicant had suffered 30% disability as his liver had been affected. Therefore, the employer-employee relationship has been proved and it is also evident and probable that the claimant had inhaled fine iron dust particles mixed in the air, while doing his work as a turner and that the applicant's respiratory system had been affected due to continued inhalation of these fine dust particles over a period of working time. Therefore, the employer-employee relationship has been proved and it is also evident and probable that the claimant had inhaled fine iron dust particles mixed in the air, while doing his work as a turner and that the applicant's respiratory system had been affected due to continued inhalation of these fine dust particles over a period of working time. As such, this Court holds that the applicant herein is entitled to get compensation as his respiratory system has been affected due to nature of his work. Hence, this Court directs the respondent herein to pay a consolidated amount of a sum of Rs.40,000/-as compensation as it is found to be appropriate in the instant case. 17. This Court directs the respondent to deposit the above said compensation of Rs.40,000/-, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, to the credit of W.C.No.225 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6, failing which the compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of deposit of the said amount. 18. After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the appellant/applicant to withdraw the compensation amount, lying in the credit of W.C.No.225 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Judgment and after identification of the applicant by his counsel. 19. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 02.06.2008, made in W.C.No.225 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6, is set aside. No costs.