( 1 ) IN this appeal the same old questions, viz. , whether the appellant and the respondent satisfy the test of being the employer and the workman respectively, under the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter called the Act); whether the employer is liable because of the introduction of a contractor in between the employer and the workman and whether the contractor is a necessary party in the proceeding; whether the type of the accident is such as is outside the scope of the Act, and lastly whether the accident 'arose out of and in course of the employment about which phrase Lord Wrenbury in the case of Armstrong Whitworth and Co. v. Redford, 1920 AC 757 (780) observed,"the decisions upon it are such as that I have long since abandoned the hope of deciding any case upon the words 'out of and in course of', upon grounds satisfactory to myself or convincing to others. "speaking for myself, I cannot abandon so early the hope of deciding a case, according to my knowledge and satisfaction, when the point is argued.

( 2 ) THE workman's case was simple. On May 27, 1958 at a time when an erection was being put up in the employer's premises and he was working as a fitter