J U D G M E N T

The award dated 28.09.2017 passed in W.C.No.85 of 2014 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The question of law raised by the appellant reads as under:

(a) whether the finding of the Commissioner that the Appellant was the employee of the 2nd opposite party when the applicant had come to the 2nd opposite party show room for installation and removal of the serial sets provided by the 1st opposite party is not perverse?

(b) whether the finding of the Commissioner that the Applicant is the employee of the 2nd opposite party/appellant in the absence of evidence that the applicant's service was temporarily lent or let on hire by the 1st opposite party to the appellant/2nd opposite party is correct?

(c)whether the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant is the employee of the 2nd Opposite party in the total absence of evidence that the applicant was controlled by the appellant/2nd opposite party at the time of accident is sustainable in law or in fact?

(d) whether the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant is the employee of the 2nd opposite party in the absence of evidence that the applicant was directed to execute the work of instal