Devan Ramachandran, J.

The centroidal issue in this case, if I may put it so, is rooted on the question whether a “Field Officer” would come within the definitional perimeters of the term “employee” under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for short). While on one hand, the employer claims that a Field Officer is not an employee because he is a supervising Officer; on the other, the legal heirs of the employee contend that even though the post is designated as Field Officer, its essential attributes are not different from an employee under the provisions of the Act. The final resolution of this lis would depend upon the answer to this singular issue.

2. A quick glance into the essential facts would first be necessary, which is as under:

This appeal is at the instance of the Kerala Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation” for short) and its Divisional Manager, wherein they impugn the order of the Court of the Employees Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal and Employees Insurance Court), Kollam in E.C.C.No.605 of 2014.

3. The appellants were arrayed as the opposite parties before the Employees Compensation Commissioner and the respondents herein were the applicants. The claim for compensation was laid on file by the respondents herein, who are the legal heirs of a certain Sri. Sreekanth Mohan, who unfortunately died in a drowning accident on 30.11.2012, while he was working as a Field Officer in the Thrissur Divisional Office of the first appellant.

4. The deceased, as we can see from the pleadings on record, was employed as a Field Officer appointed through the Public Service Commission and posted to work in the Vettiyil Estate under the supervisory control of the Divisional Manager, who is the head of the Vettiyil Division. The materials on record would show that the aforementioned Sri. Sreekanth Mohan accidentally fell into the water and died due to drowning. His body was recovered on 03.12.2012. He was only 25 years in age at the time of his death and on the allegation that the appellants have refused to accede to their request for compensation, the respondents herein filed the claim before the Employees Compensation Commissioner for a total amount of Rs.20 Lakhs with interest.

5. The appellants filed a written statement before the Employees Compensation Commissioner primarily stating that the accident occurred not within the estate but outside it and therefore, that it is upto the respondents herein to prove that at the time of the alleged occurrence of the drowning accident, Sri. Sreekanth Mohan had a causal connection with an incident of employment and that the drowning happened during the course of his employment.

6. The Employees Compensation Commissioner assessed the pleadings and the materials on record and raised the following issues:

“1. Whether there is any employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the opposite parties?

2. If the relationship is found existing, then, whether the accident occurred to the workman arose out of and in the course of his employment under the opposite parties?

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the applicants?

4. If found liable what shall be the quantum of compensation payable by the opposite parties?

5. Order as to costs.

7. It, thereafter, went on into the consideration of each of the issues and finally allowed the claim of the respondents herein declaring that they are entitled to get an amount of Rs.8,67,640/-, being the compensation, along with simple interest at the rate of 12% on such amount from the date of accident, i.e. from 30.11.2012 till the date of deposit/recovery. In addition to this, Rs.5,000/-was awarded as funeral expenses and Rs.4,000/-towards court fee. It is also declared that the appellants, being the employees of the deceased Sreekanth Mohan, are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount awarded to the res