( 1 ) THESE two appeals are interconnected. M. F. A. No. 1371 of 1994 is filed by the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and labour Welfare Officer, Bijapur, for enhancement of the compensation whereas connected M. F. A. No. 1336 of 1998 is filed by the respondent No. 1 to absolve the liability under the impugned award. In both the appeals the common award dated 30. 9. 1993 in Case No. WCA:sr: 105 of 1992 is under challenge.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties hereto are referred to as they occurred in the first appeal, i. e. , M. F. A. No. 1371 of 1994.

( 3 ) IN the first appeal the appellants are represented by the learned counsel, Mr. Ramesh B. Anneppannavar whereas the respondents are represented by the learned counsel, Mr. Umesh R. Malimath. The second appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 since in the initial stage of issuance of notice to the respondents, Mr. Ramesh B. Anneppannavar is directed to take notice for the respondents-claimants. Mr. Umesh b. Malimath represented the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent Nos. 8 to 10 in the second appeal are given up by the learned counsel for the respondent for the reason that they are not the necessary parties. I heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

( 4 ) THE facts relevant for our purpose are as hereunder: that one Saleem, the son of appellant no. 1 and husband of the appellant No. 2 and further the father of the appellant Nos. 3 to 7, died during the course of employment under the respondent No. 1. He died due to electrocution. The appellants herein had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Labour Welfare Officer, Bijapur (henceforth in brief as 'the Commissioner') in Case No. WCA:sr: 105 of 1992, claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 on the basis that at the time of death of saleem he was drawing a sum of Rs. 3,000 p. m. under the respondent No. 1 and that at the time of death he was 30 years old. Both sides adduced respective side of the evidence and based on the evidence on record, the Commissioner had awarded a compensation of Rs. 38,892 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the accident and further imposed a fine of Rs. 500 for filing of the claim petition.

( 5 ) THE first appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the commissioner had taken the daily wage of the deceased at Rs. 18 and thus awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,892, whereas the second appeal is filed by the respondent No. 1 for avoidance of the liability on the ground that the deceased was not at all an employee under him and the oil mill in question was burnt down much earlier to the date of incident of the electrocution,

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for appellantsclaimants, Mr. B. Chidananda appearing along with Mr. Ramesh B. Anneppannavar, argued that even if the appell antsclaimants could not produce evidence to show that the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs. 3,000 p. m. , in the absence of any evidence produced by the other side, the commissioner would have fallen back upon the Minimum Wages Act to hold that the deceased was earning at the rate of rs. 26. 80 and thus earning at that rate for 26 days to work out at Rs. 696. 80 p. m. and further worked out at 40 per cent thereof or Rs. 278. 72 and by employing the factor: 207. 98 (the age of the deceased being 30) with reference to the Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act and accordingly arrived at Rs. 57,968. 18 as the compensation awardable to the appellants. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned award passed by the Commissioner be suitably modified in allowing the appeal.

( 7 ) WHILE adverting to the appeal preferred by the employer, respondent No. 1, mr. Chidananda argued that when the very appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was not accompanied with the deposit certificate evidencing the deposit of the sum awarded under the impugned awa