The status of an employee is determined by whether the person performs work personally. An individual physically executing a contract, even if hired through a tender process or employing others, qualifies as a worker. Maintaining business premises is considered an integral part of an organization's trade or business.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

1. The second opposite party in ECC No. 137/2014 of the court of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner, Kozhikode is the appellant herein. Respondents 1 to 3 were the applicants before the Commissioner. Fourth respondent herein was the first opposite party.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 approached the Commissioner contending that the husband of the 1^st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, Anil Kumar died of electrocution while he was engaged in the construction of iron roof sheeting work in the office building of the appellant society on 16.7.2011 at about 2 pm. While he was doing welding work an iron pipe came in contact with a high-tension line passing nearby and was thrown away by electric shock. Though he was immediately taken to hospital he succumbed to injuries. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged 45 years and his monthly wage was Rs.12,000/-. A total amount of Rs.10,36,640/- was claimed as compensation.

3. The appellant denied the claims of the respondents 1 to 3. Alleged employer-employee relationship was denied. It was contended that the deceased was an independent contractor for roofing work and the work was entrusted to him as he submitted the lowest quotation in response to the public notice inviting quotations for the roofing work. Further it was contended that Anil Kumar had employed some other persons and was not doing any work directly. According to the appellant, instructions to the employees the iron rod came in contact with the electric line and he got electrocuted. On sympathetic considerations, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given to respondents 1 to 3 from the common benefit fund of the society.

4. The 1^st respondent as AW1 and the Honorary Secretary of the appellant was examined as RW1. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the respondents 1 to 3. Ext.B1, file pertaining to the roof construction was marked on the side of the appellant. The learned Commissioner, on appreciation of evidence, concluded that there was employer-employee relationship. It was found that the deceased himself was working under the appellant as a welder. The learned Commissioner adopted Rs.8,000/- as the monthly wages of the deceased for the purpose of calculating compensation. The compensation fixed the compensation at Rs.6,77,760/-. Interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident was also granted. In addition, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted towards funeral expenses.

5. No question of law was formulated while admitting this appeal. In my view the following substantial question of law arises for consideration:

Whether the deceased can be considered as an employee for the purpose of Employees Compensation Act despite the fact that he was engaged through a tender process?

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant fervently pleaded that no employer-employee relationship was existing between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant issued public notice inviting quotations for construction of a sheet roof. The deceased submitted his quotation and the same being the lowest, the work was awarded to him. He was therefore a contractor and not a workman. She further submitted that he had engaged labourers and the work was executed through them. When he visited the site to supervise the work on the fateful day, he unfortunately got electrocuted. The learned counsel referred to Ext.B1 file in support of the contention. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the work undertaken by the deceased was the construction of a roof, which cannot be considered as part of the trade or business of the appellant. Therefore, she submitted that in any view of the matter the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the deceased was actually an employee. She argued that the