The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employer-employee relationship and the entitlement to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

2. Brief fact involving the appeal is that the wife, old parents and minor children of the deceased workman filed W.C. 97-D/2002 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack alleging that the deceased working as labourer in the office of the respondent no.1 for over 12 years. On 12.2.2002, the deceased-workman while working over a electric pole near Mouza-Sitaleswar in Jajpur Town Section Office met with an accident by getting electric shock fell down on the ground sustaining serious bodily injuries resulting death claimed to be arising out of and in course of employment. It is on the premises of particular remuneration being received by the deceased at the relevant point of time, claim application was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. It also came to light that involving said accident, U.D. Case No.8 of 2002 was also registered by the Police. Neither the Commissioner in judgment nor appeal memorandum have filed by the establishment brings anything on the written statement if filed by the establishment. In the trial proceeding it however comes to light that in the trial the claimants examined 4 witnesses and also filed several documents by way of exhibits and on the contrary, the opposite party, i.e. the present appellant no.1 also filed some documents and adduced oral witness as OPW Nos.1 to 3 to controvert the claim of the claimants. In the first instance after considering the oral version and documentary evidence of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack by its judgment dated 7.12.2005 answering the issues in favour of the claimants directed for payment of compensation by the establishment-present respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.12.2005 in W.C. Case No.97-D/2002, the establishment preferred an appeal before this Court under Section 30 of the W.C. Act, 1923 bearing F.A.O.No.82 of 2006. This Court upon final hearing of that F.A.O. being satisfied with the grounds raised by the establishment, by order dated 8.8.2008 interfering in the judgment dated 7.12.2005 remitted back the matter to the Commissioner for re-consideration on the aspect of workmen the employer and the employee relationship but, however, entering into a fresh consideration and also giving reasonable opportunity to the parties involved. It is on remand of the matter, the claimants adduced P.W.5 and have also filed series of documents to establish employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the establishment whereas the opposite partiesrespondents during re-trial could not able to file any other new documentary evidence but have adduced only oral evidence through OPWs 4 and 5. It is basing on the further plea and materials, W.C. Case No.97-D/2002 was freshly disposed of but, however observing that there is no relationship between the workman and the establishment thereby dismissing the W.C. Case giving rise to the filing of the present appeal. In filing the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants contested the case on the following grounds:

On the further adjudication of the proceeding even though the claimants side produced further plea and evidence and in absence of any cogent evidence at the instance of the establishment, the view of the Commissioner in dismissing the claim case remains contrary to the material available and secondly, the impugned judgment remains contrary to the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants next submits that once the matter was remanded by the High Court for fresh adjudication, there ought to have been re-disposal of the claim case at least on the issue of incident in course and arising out of employment under the establishment and then to decide on the question of amount of compensation.

4. It is alleged that the commissioner e