JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. 1. The owner being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23/10/2013 passed in E.C.A. No.521/2014 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Commissioner Under Employees' Compensation Act, Belgavi has filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the claimant before the Commissioner Under Employees' Compensation Act, that on 24/8/2013 at about 5.10 p.m. when the petitioner-claimant was working as labour at B.D.S. Jinning and Pressing Factory, Gokak, on machine, his left hand caught in the machine and cut above the elbow. He was shifted to Nimra Hospital, Gokak, where he took treatment for about 18 days. He sustained amputation up to middle 1/3rd of the left arm. Gokak police have registered Cr.No.312/2013 under Sections 287 and 338 of IPC. The said act was due to the carelessness of respondent employer who has not taken care to provide guard and put grills on the machine. Due to amputation, the petitioner has become 100% disabled. Therefore, he claimed compensation against his employer and insurer. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement. Respondent No.1 filed his written statement contending that the petitioner is not the resident of Samarth Nagar, Behind Roopali Talkies, Belagavi, He has denied that on 24/8/2013 at 5.10p.m. while during the work of the labour, his hand caught in machine and cut above the elbow. He has denied that incident and also wages and age. He further contended that the incident has not occurred during the course of and out of employment. Petitioner was not the employee of the mill. Without the knowledge of the respondent he entered the factory and put his hand in the machine to pick the cotton and sustained injuries, due to his own negligence. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Respondent No.2 filed objections denying the entire averments made in the claim petition. Further contended that no such incident is reported to the nearest police station. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he was employed under respondent No.1. The claim petition is filed by creating story. Hence, the same may be dismissed. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the issues. The claimant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to 10. Respondent has not produced any oral or documentary evidence. 6. The claim petition is filed by creating story. Hence, the same may be dismissed. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the issues. The claimant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to 10. Respondent has not produced any oral or documentary evidence. 6. The learned member of the Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,63,012/- only against respondent No.1 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after 30 days from the date of accident till deposit. 7. Respondent No.1- the owner of the Jinning and Pressing Factory being aggrieved by the judgment and award, has filed this appeal, on the grounds that respondent No.1 is not at all employed by him and he has not paid any wages to him. In support of his claim petitioner is relying on the documents of the police, the Court below on those documents proceeded to hold that he is the employee of the appellant and granted the compensation against the procedure of law. It is also contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the said claim petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1. 9. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to "whether the appellant has made out grounds to set aside the judgment on the ground that there was no relationship of employer and employee and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition ?." 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner-claimant has not produced any document to show that he was appointed by the appellant and that he is the employee and further that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and that the claimant had not examined any witnesses in support of his claim. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the appellant has not produced any document to show that the claimant was not working under him and he was not his employee. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of the claimant regarding jurisdiction was not at all disputed in his cross examination. 12. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the appellant has not produced any document to show that the claimant was not working under him and he was not his employee. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of the claimant regarding jurisdiction was not at all disputed in his cross examination. 12. The claimant contended before the Tribunal that he was working as labour in the Jinning and Pressing Factory of the appellant herein at Gokak and on 20/4/2015 at 5.30 p.m. when he was working on the machine, his left hand was caught in the machine and cut above elbow. In order to prove that the incident took place in the factory premises of the appellant herein, the claimant has produced the documents including photographs. It is also admitted that the claimant himself filed a compliant before the police as per Ex.P1 -regarding the accident and the police have registered the case against the appellant herein and have also filed charge sheet against him as per Ex.P4. These documents are not disputed by the appellant. The injures sustained by the claimant and the disability suffered by him is also not much disputed. 13. On the other hand, the appellant herein was contended that the claimant tresspassed into his factory premises without his knowledge and put the hand in the machine causing injury. This contention of the appellant cannot be accepted in the absence of any action being taken by the appellant against the claimant. In case the claimant tresspassed into the factory premises of the appellant and tried to remove the cotton from the machine and in that course he sustained injury, the appellant would not have kept quite without lodging the complaint against the claimant. It is also submitted that the appellant is running the said Jinning and Pressing Factory and the provisions of the Factory Act are applicable to the said unit. In that event, the appellant should have submitted the list of his workers to the authorities under the said Act. The appellant would have produced the list of his workers submitted to the authorities under the Act in order to show that the claimant is not his worker or employee. 14. In that event, the appellant should have submitted the list of his workers to the authorities under the said Act. The appellant would have produced the list of his workers submitted to the authorities under the Act in order to show that the claimant is not his worker or employee. 14. On the other hand, the material produced by the claimant goes to show that the incident took place in the factory premises of the appellant herein and that the claimant lodged the complaint in respect of the said incident and police after investigating the matter have filed the charge sheet against the appellant are sufficient to prove that the claimant sustained the injury while working in the factory of the appellant herein. The non examination of co-workers by the claimant cannot be a ground to accept the contention of the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant himself has withheld the evidence available in order to prove that the claimant is not his worker or employee. Therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is liable to be rejected. 15. The appellant herein has taken the contention that the petitioner is not the resident of Belgaum and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The claimant-petitioner has shown his address as that of Samarth Nagar, Behind Roopali Talkies, Belagavi, in his claim petition. The Tribunal has observed in para No.10 of the judgment that the petitioner has deposed to the address given by him. However, respondent No.1 has not cross examined the petitioner on this aspect. Thereby, the said contention is not disputed by the appellant in the cross examination of claimant. There is no material to show that the address furnished by the petitioner in the cause title of the petition is either false or incorrect. Under these circumstances, the second contention of the appellant that the Tribunal at Belgavi had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, also cannot be accepted. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court answer the above point for consideration in the negative and proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.