1. When the above C.M.Ps came up for hearing, by consent of learned counsel on both sides, the appeal itself was heard for final disposal.

2. Second respondent, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, is the appellant before this Court.

3. Applicants before the Labour Court are claiming under one Kumar, who was a workman employed by one Pushparaj, 3rd respondent before this court. It is their case that he died on 29. 1988 in an accident which arose in the course of employment. It is said that on that date, second respondent/appellant engaged deceased Kumar through the contractor Pushparaj for the purpose of doing boiler work under the direct control of the appellant, and while the deceased was working in electrical drilling work within the premises of the appellant, due to negligent and improper arrangement of the electrical drilling machine, it broke and Kumar died on the spot as a result of electrocution. The accident took place in the course of employment and therefore, they claim compensation for his death.

4. In the counter statement of the appellant, it said that it did not employ deceased Kumar at any time, and there was no employer and employ