JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 28.12.2012 passed by Employee’s Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad Region, Moradabad in E.C.A. No. 57 of 2011 (Badrul Hasan and another v. Ehsan and another) 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimants have filed E.C.A. No. 59 of 2011 for claiming compensation in respect of the death of Meraj Ali who was employed as cleaner of Tata 079 No. U.P.85/E-9232 who is claimed to have died on 19.4.2011 during the course of his employment. The claim application was contested by the National Insurance Company. The appellant in this case National Insurance Company as well as the employer, both of whom filed their respective written statement. E.C.A 57 of 2011 was filed by legal representatives of Mohd.Qamar Alam, who was employed as labour on the aforesaid vehicle. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner by impugned order dated 28.12.2012 allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,62,490/- in F.A.F.O. No. 524 of 2013 and Rs. 459534/- in F.A.F.O. No. 525 of 2013 as compensation to be paid by the appellant Insurance Company. 5. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the relationship between the master and servant (employee-deceased) is highly disputed. He stated that deceased was a driver of DCM Truck, which jumped into a ditch and this fact was proved from newspaper cutting published in the News Paper as well as his testimony. According to him, the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as passenger, therefore, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. Taking a contrary view, the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner has allowed the claim application of the respondent which is wholly baseless, illegal and erroneous. 6. From perusal of award we find that Tribunal while deciding issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 held that Meraj Ali, the deceased, and Mohd. Taking a contrary view, the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner has allowed the claim application of the respondent which is wholly baseless, illegal and erroneous. 6. From perusal of award we find that Tribunal while deciding issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 held that Meraj Ali, the deceased, and Mohd. Qamar Alam were workman of Tata 079 No.UP-85/E-9232 on permanent basis and there was a relationship of employer and employee between them and opposite party No.1 Ehsan Hasan son of Shahjade resident of Mohalla Chaudhari Sarai Tahsil Sambhal District Moradabad owner of Tata-709 UP 85E-9232; that the deceased died on 19.4.2011 during the course of his employment of the aforesaid Truck and that he was earning Rs. 2600/- basic + Rs. 1583.08 DA i.e. total 4163.08 p. on the date of accident. 7. It also appears from the award that the claim was contested by the appellant Insurance Company that the appellant has based his case on the newspaper cutting and stated that the aforesaid persons were travelling as passengers on the Tata Truck concerned. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that newspaper cutting cannot be taken as authentic by the Court. This Court as a matter of fact has found that the deceased were employees of owner of Tata Truck i.e. opposite party No.1 Sri Ahsan Hasan son of Shajade has admitted the relationship of employer and employee between him and both the deceased. 9. In this view of the matter the relationship of employer and employee having been admitted by the owner, we do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner has wrongly passed the award. 10. Admitted facts do not require any proof and in the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. ——————