DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. The respondent was employed by the appellant. His right hand was caught in the moving machine and crushed. He obtained a certificate from Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi who assessed his permanent partial disability at 40%. He served a Notice of Claim. On the application of the appellant, he submitted to the medical examination by Dr. A. jokio, who assessed permanent partial disability by 20% and by treatment it would be reduced to 10%. The claim filed by the respondent was resisted.
The learned Commissioner, however, rejected the objections and allowed the compensation.
Consequently the appeal has been filed.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two pleas before me. The first plea was that there were only six workmen employed by the appellant and, therefore, the Workmen's Compensation Act was not applicable. The second plea that has been taken before me is that the learned Commissioner erred in relying upon the evidence of Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi and not accepting the evidence of Dr. Jokio. When those contentions were made before me I pointed out to the learned counsel that these were questions of fact and, therefore, could not be agitated in appeal as according to the provisions of Compensation Act the appeal lay only if substantial question of law was involved. He, however, attempted to refer to the evidence which was brought on record and agitated that on the basis of that evidence the conclusion of the Commissioner was not sustainable and, therefore, this amounted to a question of law.
4. Dealing with the first contention it was pointed out by the learned counsel that it was an admitted position that six workers were working in the Printing section while the work of binding was given to another person. He, however, pointed out that the other person was neither a Contractor nor an agent of the appellant and therefore, the appellant could not be treated to be employer of the persons employed by that person. He also urged that even according to the admission made by Ghanzanfarullah Khan, witness for the respondent, in the cross-examination that the Contractor used to bring some time one and some time some others for the Binding Work and, therefore, the number could not be ten or more in order to attract the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is no force in this contention as in the cross-examination-in- chief the witness had clearly stated that six persons were working in the Printing section while five men were supplied by the Contractor for the Binding work and they worked within the same pre mists. The law requires that on any day in the preceding year ten or more persons should be employed. Consequently the requirements * of law have been fulfilled. The question whether the workers were supplied by the Contractor or the Contractor was working independently and employees were his own men for binding purpose is clearly a question of fact.l The learned Commissioner believed the evidence tendered by the respondent/ and this cannot be assailed in appeal. | 5. So far as the evidence of two doctors is concerned the learned counsel attempted to point out that Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi, on whom reliance was placed by the learned Commissioner had admitted that the opinion of the Doctor who had initially examined and treated the injury would be given preference. Even th;s statement of Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi does not help the respondent as accident took place on 19-7-1972 while the respondent was examined by Dr. Jokio on the 22-6-1973, that is, after obout 11 months. So it cannot be said that Dr. Jokio initially examined injury andl treated. Consequently the finding of the learned Commissioner based on a[B question of fact, cannot be attacked in appeal. I 6. In the result the appeal is dismissed.