Sushil Kukreja, Judge

By way of instant appeal filed under Section 30 of theWorkmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’), challenge has been laid to the orders dated 19.11.2011 & 28.11.2011, passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, in Claim Petition No.9/2 of 2011/07, titled Ramawati & ors. Vs. Amit Enterprises & anr., whereby the claim petition filed by respondents No.1 to 4/petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the petitionePrs) under Sections 21 & 22 of the Act, for grant of compensation. on account of death of Satish Kumar, who was husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 4, in an accident, was allowed and they were held entitled for compensation of Rs.2,44,024/-, which was to be paid by respondent No.1/ (appellant herein), alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 30.07.2007 till deposit of the entire compensation amount. In addition, the petitioners were also held entitled to a sum of Rs.36,504/- ( 15% of compensationamount) as penalty.

Precisely the facts of the case, as emerge from the grecord, are that Satish Kumar was a workman allegedly iemployed by respondent No.1 (appellant herein) as helper, who had taken a contract from respondent No.2 (respondent No.5 herein). On 30.06.2007, Satish Kumar received a fatal electric shock while performing his duties, which resulted into his death. The deceased was holding a welding set and when he tried to remove the tape, he received an electric shock, due to which, he became unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital, where the doctor had declared him brought dead. As per the petitioners, the accident had taken place during the course ofemployment of the deceased with respondent No.1/apPpellant in the premises of respondent No.2 (respondent No.4 he.rein), due to lack of proper insulating equipment, like gloves which were not provided to him. At the time of his death, the deceased was 25 years of age and his the monthly wages were Rs.5,000/- and the petitioners were totally dependents upon him as he was the only earning member of the family. The petitioners requested the respondents to pay compensation, but no compensation was paid. Hence, the petitioners prayed for compensation to the tuneof Rs.5 lacs alongwith interest.

The aforesaid claim put-forth by the petitioner, came to gbe resisted by the respondents by way of filing separate replies. In iits reply, respondent No.1 (appellant herein), raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, jurisdiction and that the claim petition is hit by provisions of Section 75, Sub-Sections 2(b) & (3) of the Employees State Insurance Act. On merits, it was averred that the deceased was not its employee and it had no concern with him. It was further averred that the petition was filed just to extract money from respondent No.1 and since the deceased was not its employee, therefore, there was no question of paying the compensation.

In the reply filed by respondent No.2 (responPdent No.5 herein), it was averred that the deceased was a.ppointed by respondent No.1 in the premises of respondent No.2 for the execution of electric work, which was given to it on contract. It was also averred that the respondents had supplied all necessary equipment to the deceased, but he negligently tried to do the connections of the welding set. It was averred that the minimum wages was being paid to the deceased and the petitioners werenot entitled to any compensation.

On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respehctive parties, the learned Commissioner below, vide ordergdated 08.11.2008, framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the application is hit by Section 77(3) & 53 of E.S.I. Act and not maintainable, as alleged ?...OPR-1

2. Whether the deceased was a workman under the respondent No.1 and died during the course of his employment under respondents, as alleged? ...OPA

3. Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation, a