( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 18 passed by the learned Commissioner of Workmen Compensation Junagadh in Workmen Compensation Case No. 31 of 1984 filed by the parents (appellants herein) of deceased Anilkumar who died on 1 due to the injuries sustained by him on account of electric shock which he received while he was doing the work of painting the electric pole on 30-5-1982 near Dolatpura Sub-Station belonging to the Gujarat Electricity Board (Respondent No. 1) (hereinafter referred to as the Board ).

( 2 ) THE appellants claimed Rs. 90 0 as compensation against the Board who is the owner of the said sub-station and electric pole as also against its Executive Engineer (Transmission) at Dhoraji (Respondent No. 2) and one Khakha Hamir Labour Contractor of the Board (Respondent No. 3 ). The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) by his aforesaid judgment and order awarded an amount of Rs. 24 0 as compensation and Rs. 12 0 as penalty totalling to Rs. 36 0 with interest and costs only from Respondent No. 3-Contractor and rejected the claim of the appellants-claimants against the Board and its Executive Engineer (Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ). Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the appellants (parents of deceased Anilkumar) have filed this appeal and prayed that the award may also be passed against Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

( 3 ) THE question that arises for our consideration is whether deceased Anilkumar who was engaged for doing the work of painting the electric poles of Dolatpura Sub-Station belonging to the Board was doing the work which was ordinarily a part of the trade or business of the Board. The facts of this case in short which are more or less not disputed are as under:

( 4 ) DECEASED Anilkumar had studied upto 12th Standard and passed the Wireman Examination. He was aged about 20 years at the time of the incident. On 30-5-1982 while he was doing the work of painting the pole at Dolatpura Sub-Station of the Board he received electric shock and burns. He was admitted in the hospital where he ultimately died on 1-6-1982. There is no dispute regarding his salary etc.

( 5 ) THE learned Commissioner has observed that both the sides have admitted that deceased Anilkumar expired while he was doing the work of painting on the Electric pole. There is no dispute that the deceased was employed by respondent No. 3 who had obtained contract from the Board for painting of the Sub-Station including the electric poles belonging to the Board. However it Was contended on behalf of the Board that deceased Anilkumar was employed by Respondent No. 3 and that he was injured in the ordinary course of business of Respondent No. 3. The learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that painting of electric pole was not originally part of the business of the Board and therefore on that ground he non-suited the appellants so far as Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned.

( 6 ) BEFORE we consider the statutory provisions of sec. 12 of the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) we will first examine the functions of the Board. Sec. 18 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Supply Act) falls under Chapter IV which deals with Powers and duties of State Electricity Boards and Generating Companies. Material part of sec. 18 of the Supply Act which is relevant for our purposes reads: 18 Subject to the provisions of this Act the Board shall be charged with the following general duties namely: (A) to arrange in co-ordination with the Generating Company or Generating Companies if any operating in the State for the supply of electricity that may be required within the State and for the transmission and distribution of the same in the most efficient and economical manner with particular reference to those areas which are not for the time being supplied or adequately supplied with electricity. (B) to