( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Municipal Board, Almora against an order of the Deputy commissioner, Almora sitting as Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act awarding a sum of Rs. 1,260/- as compensation to a workman Jasod Singh who is respondent no. 1 in this appeal and the second respondent being the State of Uttar Pradesh. The facts leading up to this appeal are as follows :

( 2 ) A project for the electrification of the town of Almora was being executed by the U. P. Government on the material date. The workman Jasod Singh was one of the employees engaged in this work. His duty was to assist in the installation of poles and overhead cables. On 20-11-1950, while working on a pole he fell down and received injuries resulting in his permanent partial disability. He made an application for compensation under Section 3 of the workmens Compensation Act, claiming Rs. 2,520/ -. The Municipal Board and the State were made defendants.

( 3 ) BOTH of them contested the claim on merits and, in the alternative, each pleaded that the other was liable to pay compensation. The State contended that it was executing the project only as an agent of the Municipal Board which alone was liable for compensation. On the other hand, the municipal Board pleaded that the work was not being constructed by the State on behalf of the board.

( 4 ) THE Commissioner rejected the case of both defendants that the workman was not entitled to compensation. He held that Jasod Singh was ordered to go up the electric pole in the course of his duties and that he received an electric shock which caused him to fall down. He held that he had received injuries in the discharge of duties during his employment which resulted in permanent partial disability. He assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,260/ -.

( 5 ) ON the question whether the Municipal Board or the State was liable to pay the compensation, the Commissioner held that the Local Self-Government Engineering Department (hereinafter called L. S. G. E. D.) had been executing the work for the Municipal Board, Almora and for the boards benefit. Accordingly, he held the Municipal Board alone to be liable for the compensation. Aggrieved by this decision the Board has come to this Court in appeal.

( 6 ) IN this appeal the right of the workman to receive compensation is not in dispute, and the only question is whether the appellant Board is liable or the respondent the State of Uttar Pradesh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that, not the Board, but the State is liable.

( 7 ) UNDER the Act an employer is liable to pay compensation for any personal injury caused to a workman by accident in the course of his employment. The word "employer" has been defined in section 2 (e) as follows :

"section 2 (e) : "employer" includes any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the workman is working for him. "

(7a) Mr. N. D. Pant, who argued the case for the State with ability and tenacity, contended that this definition includes a managing agent and would, therefore, cover the Municipal Board and thus absolve the Government from liability in the present case. Learned counsel conceded that jasod Singh, at the time of the accident, was an employee of the State, but argued that, as the state itself was the agent of the Municipal Board, it was absolved from liability in this case. I do not agree. The definition of an employer is not exhaustive. The words used are "employer includes. . . . any managing agent". It is, therefore, immaterial whether the State was working for itself or on behalf of the Municipal Board. Even if it was constructing the project as the agent of the Board,