SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, District Ajmer (for short 'the Commissioner') whereby petition under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') was allowed and Manohar, the claimant -respondent No. 1 was awarded Rs. 1,42,074 as compensation. Background Facts
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 (for short 'Manohar') initiated proceedings under Section 10 of the Act before the Commissioner stating therein that respondent No. 2 (for short 'Shiv Dutt') got the contract of whitewashing from the appellant (for short the 'Board') and engaged workers. On 2.12.1993 Manohar fell down while whitewashing the top floor of the building as a result of which he was severely injured and his right leg was completely amputated, therefore he became unfit to do any work. Manohar claimed Rs. 42,000 as compensation. In the reply Shiv Dutt stated that he gave the sub -contract to Mangilal. Thus Mangilal was also impleaded in the claim petition. Shiv Dutt has further stated that Manohar was assigned the work of whitewashing in the corridor but he himself reached on the roof and met with the accident. The Board in its reply denied liability towards claim and stated that definition of 'employer' as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act does not include 'Board'. Mangilal was proceeded ex pane and the Commissioner framed as many as three issues which have been set out in the judgment of the trial court. The parties adduced their evidence and the learned Commissioner awarded compensation as mentioned hereinabove.
(3.) THE question springing up for consideration is whether the 'Board' is an employer under the provisions of the Act and is liable for compensation? Statutory Background;