Per J. B. Koshy, J.

A novel question arises in this appeal. When a registered worker under the Headload Workers Scheme framed under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act in a Scheme covered area meet with an accident in the course and arising out of employment, who is liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, whether the statutory committee or the registered establishment for whom the workman was working at the time of accident ? This appeal is filed by the Headload Workers Welfare Board Local Committee, Palakkad against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation granting 100% workmen compensation to a head load worker. The accident is admitted. The accident occurred during the course of employment and it is also not disputed that the accident arose during the course of employment and it has arisen out of employment. Wages paid is also admitted. In this case the injured workman while carrying a load on his shoulder, his legs slipped and the load fell on his left leg and suffered fracture to the left leg. The doctor who examined him by Ext. A4 and Ext. A5 certificates certified that there is 15% permanent disability. However, the Commissioner, considering the nature of the job awarded 100% disability and also directed the Head load Workers' Local Committee to pay the amount. Two substantial questions are placed by the appellant. The main question is who is the employer in this case ? Secondly whether the Commissioner is right in giving 100% compensation ignoring the percentage of disability fixed in the medical certificate of the Doctor.

The contention of the appellant is that workman was working for the second opposite party, the 2nd respondent herein and therefore the real employer is the second respondent and only second respondent should be multed with the liability of payment of workmen's compensation. It is not disputed that the worker concerned was a registered worker under the Kerala Headload Workers Act as well as under the Scheme and he was sent to work for the second respondent for that time by the appellant committee. The worker was bound to do work in any of the establishment sent by the committee depending upon the work in the pool allotted to him. Allotment of headload workers to certain pools and certain establishments are peculiar in the Kerala State. The question to be considered is whether liability to pay the workmen's compensation is on the committee or not. It has to be decided only after going to the provisions of the Act as well as the Scheme. Definition of Employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act is very wide and it can be a body also and it include managing agent of the employer also. Under the provisions of the Head Load Workers Act (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") the term employer is defined under S. 2(i) which is as follows :(i) "employer" means, -

(i) in relation to a headload worker engaged by or through a contractor, the principal employer;

(ii) in relation to headload worker who is not employed by any employer or contractor, the committee constituted under S. 18; and

(iii) in relation to any other headload worker, the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment in or for which the headload worker is employed and includes any other person to whom the affairs of such establishment are entrusted, whether such person is called an agent, manager or by other name prevailing in such establishment."

Even though Head Load Workers Act is applicable to the entire State of Kerala, wherever head load workers are engaged, the Scheme is applicable only to specified areas. Once the Scheme is applicable, all headload workers other than permanent workers attached to establishments can be employed by establishments only through the Committee constituted under the Scheme. Establishment has to register their names and employer also has to register their names. The head load workers are enrolled by the Committee. There is no role for the appo