N. K. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 of the workmens Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and order dated 16/06/2001 passed by the Workmens Compensation commissioner/deputy Labour Commissioner, lucknow Region, Lucknow in Girdhari Lal sharma v. Managing Director, ELDECO housing and Industries Ltd. W. C. Case No. 19/1997. ( 2 ) GIRDHARI Lal Sharma was a piece rate contractor engaged by the respondent and he was earning Rs. 2,600/- average monthly income from the work given by the respondent. When he was working on an electric pole, he was shocked by the electricity current and ultimately he became paralysed. He filed a petition for compensation. The learned commissioner found that he is not a workman employed by the respondent but even then since he was contractor engaged by the respondent and since he has become permanently paralysed, he awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-as compensation. It is against this order, girdhari Lal Sharma has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only question involved in this appeal is that whether the claimant is workman as defined under Section 2 (l) (n) been interpreted. The relevant portion of the aforesaid case is as follows:"the concept of employment involves three ingredients: (1) employer (2) employee, and (3) the contract of employment. The employer is one who employs, i. e. , one who engages the services of other persons. The employee is one who works for another for hire. The employment is the contract of service between the employer and the employee whereunder the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to his control and supervision. Can it be said that a sattedar is employed by the management of the factory to serve under it ? There is well understood distinction between a contractor and a workman and between contract for service and contract of service. Can it be said that a sattedar is employed by the management of the factory to serve under it ? There is well understood distinction between a contractor and a workman and between contract for service and contract of service. In STROUDs judicial DICTIONARY (Third Edition, volume 1, Page 616) the distinction between a contractor and a workman is brought out in bold relief in the following manner:"of course every person who makes an agreement with another for the doing of work is a contractor, in a general sense, but as used in Workmens Compensation act; and "workman" have come to have a more restricted and distinctive meaning, and "contractor" means one who makes an agreement to carry out certain work specified, but not on a contract of service. " ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid settled position, it is clear that there must be a contract of service. In the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, there must be a fourth ingredient to establish the relationship of master and servant (i) right to select a person (ii) control and supervision over the workmen, (iii) payment of wages or remuneration and (iv)right to suspend or remove a person from employment. ( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit, the respondenl has filed certain documents. Annexure-2 is the statement of Girdhari Lal Sharma himself recorded by the Commissioner. The respondent had also filed certain bills on the basis of which the payment was made to the appellant. These bills also show that the payments were made twice or thrice in a month. Annexure-2 is a final running bill. All these documents coupled with the statement ol girdhari Lal Sharma placed before the commissioner establishes a fact that there was no relationship of master and servant and the appellant was not employed but he was a piece rate contractor. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the commissioner that the appellant was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (1 ) (n) of the Workmens Compensation Act. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid finding, the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. .