The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, emphasizing that it does not cover a contractor.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment of the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C. Case No.30 of 2000 thereby holding the claimant injured therein to be working under the employment of the present Appellants and as a consequence upon holding that such workman sustained injury in course of and arising out of employment under the Appellants, the Commissioner has granted compensation of Rs.70,070/- with interest accrued thereon to be paid by the Appellants within a period of thirty days in favour of the claimant.

2. Short background involved in this case is that the Respondent being the claimant filed W.C. Case No.30 of 2000 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bhubaneswar on the plea that on 19.09.1998 on the asking of the Assistant Manager Electrical, NALCO for giving temporary power supply to the Pendal erected by the worker's union near the Community Center of the NALCO, the Claimant-Respondent while engaged in such work on account of suffering from electric shock received serious injury. It is, on the premises that he suffered injury in course of employment and arising out of employment filed the claim application involved herein. In the first round of litigation on their appearance the present Appellants- the NALCO filed written statement denying the claim of the Respondent. It is the specific case of the Appellants that neither the claimant was a workman of NALCO nor sustained any injury during course of employment. It is, in the premises that there was no master and servant relationship between the claimant and the NALCO, the NALCO objected the entertainability of the claim application. To substantiate his case the claimant examined three witnesses and the so called employer the present Appellants have examined four witnesses to support their case. Both the parties also filed several documents. In the first round of litigation it appears, the W.C. Case was disposed of on 24.01.2008 allowing the claim of the claimant by awarding a sum of Rs.70,070/- as compensation required to be paid by the present Appellants. These Appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.01.2008 in W.C. Case No.30 of 2000 preferred FAO No.153 of 2008. After hearing both the parties, it appears, this High Court disposed of the FAO No.153 of 2008 vide its judgment dated 3.07.2008 whereby setting aside the judgment dated 24.01.2008, this Court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after providing opportunity of hearing to the Parties concerned. Consequently the W.C. case was reopened and on reopening of the proceeding the claimant did not adduce any further evidence. Learned Commissioner again on the basis of the previous evidence allowed the W.C. Case by its judgment dated 15.11.2012 reiterating the direction of the previous Commissioner thereby asking the present Appellants again to pay compensation of Rs.70,070/- to the Claimant-Respondent within a period of 30 days.

3. It is alleged that even though the Commissioner posted the matter on 22.03.2012 for argument and the Appellants concluded its argument, the matter was again posted to 5.04.2012 for hearing. On which date the Appellants submitted their written argument and the Commissioner again entertained the argument on 30.05.2012 and while concluding the hearing involving both the Parties the Commissioner posted the matter to 19.06.2012 for judgment. Unfortunately on 19.06.2012 no judgment was passed and even there was further posting of the case. Surprisingly on 15.11.2012 it is after lapse of about six months time the impugned judgment was passed without even any notice or intimation to the Appellants.

4. Assailing the impugned judgment Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that for the clear revealing from the case of the so called workman that he himself was a