8. A perusal of records reveals that the claimants had lodged a first information report on 28.08.2013 at about 8.30 a.m and the accident took place at 6.30 a.m on the same day. In the first information report, the claimants had stated that the deceased was working as a Cleaner in the Lorry, which belongs to the 4th respondent herein. The averments cannot be stated to be an afterthought. Though the 4th respondent examined himself as a witness and had deposed that the deceased did not work as a Cleaner in the Lorry, the cross examination would reveal that his father was in-charge of the Lorry business and only his father knew as to who was employed in the Lorry and that he came to know the facts stated by him only from his father. The 4th respondent had not chosen to examine his father to prove that the deceased was not employed under him. In the light of the above admission by the 4th respondent, his evidence is hearsay and therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal holding that the claimants had established the employeremployee relationship cannot be faulted. In any case, the grounds raised in the appeal are factual in nature. No question of law much less a
