JUDGMENT One Kallappa was employed as loader under respondent 1 on contract basis and piece basis for loading the goods of the passengers in the transport vehicle of respondent 1. Another goods vehicle which was stationed beyond the goods vehicle in question was suddenly started and made a movement. The deceased sandwiched between two lorries and died. 2. The dependants of the deceased made a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation. Respondent 1 filed written statement denying the relationship of employer and employee. It is said that the deceased was authorised by respondent 1 for loading the goods of the consignor. The deceased had to collect remuneration from the consignor for loading into the lorry of respondent 1, therefore, submitted that respondent 1 does not pay any wages/remuneration to the deceased for the work done. Hence, the deceased is not the employee and there exists no relationship of the employer and employee. 3. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner held that the deceased is employee of respondent 1 and awarded the compensation. The employer is directed to pay the compensation in view of the fact that the vehicle in question was covered by the policy. 4. Substantial question of law: ''When employer of transport vehicle authorised/appoints any person to load the goods of the consignors without payment of remuneration on the part of the employer, but directs the consignor to pay the remuneration to the loader whether in such situation, the relationship of employer and employee exist between the deceased and respondent 1?" 5. The facts disclose that respondent 1 has ingeniously devised the method of outsourcing in loading and unloading of goods. The terms of contract apparently shows that respondent 1 enters into contract exclusively with the persons for loading and unloading. In other words respondent 1 does not permit everyone to load and unload without his authorisation. Obviously the loader is employed by respondent 1 and he works for the trade and business of respondent 1. However respondent 1 does not pay remuneration but consignor pays the remuneration. This ingenious method perhaps devised to circumvent the provisions of P.F. Act to show that contract loaders are not persons employed by the establishment. 6. The definition of workman clinchingly establishes that the deceased was employed as loader and he was working for the business of respondent 1. However respondent 1 does not pay remuneration but consignor pays the remuneration. This ingenious method perhaps devised to circumvent the provisions of P.F. Act to show that contract loaders are not persons employed by the establishment. 6. The definition of workman clinchingly establishes that the deceased was employed as loader and he was working for the business of respondent 1. The fact that respondent 1 does not pay remuneration is not a ground to hold that there is no relationship of employer and employee. Respondent 1 virtually enters into ingenious contract to overcome his obligations under the Labour Welfare Law, the terms of contract between respondent 1 and the deceased offends under Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 7. In view of the reasons and discussions made above, the findings of W.C. Commissioner that the deceased was the employee of respondent 1 is sound and proper. The appeal is dismissed.