Rakesh Tiwari, J. We have heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra, counsel for the appellants on the question of condonation of delay. This FAFO is reported to be beyond time by 43 days. Having perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, we are of the view that cause shown for delay is sufficient. Delay is condoned. Delay condonation application is, accordingly, allowed. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 06.02.2013 passed by Commissioner, Employee's Compensation/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur in W.C.A. No. 35 of 2012: Mahipal & others Vs. Executive Engineer & others, whereby an award of Rs.6,16,772/- has been awarded which was to be paid by appellant no. 1/Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Nakur, Saharanpur within a period of 30 days from the date of order. By the impugned award, appellant no. 1 was further directed that in case of payment of default, 12% interest will also be charged from the date of order. Brief facts of the case are that claim petition no. 35 of 2012 was filed by the complainants under Section 22 of Employee's Compensation Act, claiming compensation of Rs.7,13,055/- on death of his son Ajay Kumar due to electrocution on 22.06.2012 when he was changing the transformer. The claim petition was contested by the defendant/appellants by filing written statement denying the fact that deceased was his employee or that he was working on the instruction of the appellant, rather he was repairing the transformer for a private consumer, as such there was no relation of master of servant between the appellant and deceased. After filing of reply to the claim petition, Manipal Singh ( complainant no. 1) gave his oral statement on oath and he was cross examined by the defendant/appellants' counsel on 21.09.2012. On behalf of appellants, Sushil Kumar Singh, Junior Engineer as well as one Ravi Kumar, S.D.O. gave their oral statements before the court who denied employment of deceased in their department. Pankaj Kumar ( S.S.O.)/D.W. 3 stated on oath that on 22.06.2012 the deceased was working along with two other contractual employees of the department. After passing of the award, aforesaid, the appellant filed a recall application for recalling the order dated 06.02.2013 in W.C.A. No. 35 of 2012. Pankaj Kumar ( S.S.O.)/D.W. 3 stated on oath that on 22.06.2012 the deceased was working along with two other contractual employees of the department. After passing of the award, aforesaid, the appellant filed a recall application for recalling the order dated 06.02.2013 in W.C.A. No. 35 of 2012. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties, the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Saharanpur allowed recall application of appellant on 01.03.2013 holding that the deceased was not in the employment of the appellant. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2013, the complainant filed writ petition no. 17410 of 2013 which was allowed on 02.04.2013. Consequently, the Commissioner Employee's Compensation issued notices to the appellants to deposit the awarded amount pursuant of his earlier award dated 06.02.2013 within ten days. Thereafter, the appellant deposited the awarded amount in the office of Commissioner Employee's Compensation, Saharanpur on 01.05.2013. On 06.05.2013, The Commissioner Employee's Compensation, Saharanpur is said to have issued notice informing the appellants that he is going to release the deposited amount in favour of the claimants. Hence the present appeal has been filed. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the award dated 06.02.2013 is ex-facie prejudicial on its face of record as deceased was never in employment of the appellants; that claimant Mahipal in his cross examination dated 21.09.2012 has admitted that he does not have any documentary evidence regarding employment of his son; that the award is passed on the presumption and inference by the Commissioner that the appellants had deliberately not filed the attendance register and salary register; that the deceased himself violated the safety rules as provided in Rule 36 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956; that the award is based on false, incorrect and hypothetical presumption as the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was a relationship of master and servant between the deceased and appellants which was not correct. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we find that Pankaj Kumar (S.S.O.) D.W.3 produced by the appellant had clearly stated that deceased was working as a contractor. Once the electricity connection is given to a consumer, it is the duty of the department to maintain it. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we find that Pankaj Kumar (S.S.O.) D.W.3 produced by the appellant had clearly stated that deceased was working as a contractor. Once the electricity connection is given to a consumer, it is the duty of the department to maintain it. Admittedly, the deceased died while repairing fault in the transformer and the department had shut down the line for this purpose, but it appears that the line was inadvertently resumed by the appellants without verifying as to whether the fault had been repaired or not, therefore, it cannot be said that his death was not caused during course of employment. Admittedly, the deceased died while repairing fault in the transformer and the department had shut down the line for this purpose, but it appears that the line was inadvertently resumed by the appellants without verifying as to whether the fault had been repaired or not, therefore, it cannot be said that his death was not caused during course of employment. Findings of the Tribunal in this regard are thus: ^^i=koyh ij miyC/k okn&i=] mRrj&i=] izfr&mRrj] vfHkys[k i{kksa dh lk{;@ftjg mijkUr i=koyh dk ijh{k.k@fujh{k.k djus ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gwa fd izfroknhx.k }kjk izLrqr mRrj i= esa e`rd vt; dqekj vt; dqekj dk fu;kstu osru ds nkSjku nq?kZVuk ls Li"V :i ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq oknh dk dFku gS fd e`rd vt; dqekj 'kV Mkmu ysus ds i'pkr~ fctyh dh ykbu ij dk;Z dj jgk Fkk vpkud ykbZu pkyw dj nh xbZ] ftlls muds iq= vt; dqekj dh e`R;q gks xbZA foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ vFkok vU; dehZ ls lacaf/kr gktjh] osru Hkqxrku dk fjdkMZ i=koyh ij nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k] ftlls ;g Kkr gksrk gh fd e`rd dk uke foHkkx ds fjdkMZ ij lfEefyr ugha gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa ftlesa foHkkx ds }kjk deZpkfj;ksa dk fjdkMZ nkf[ky u djus dh fLFkfr esa ;g eku ysuk fd e`rd foi{kh }kjk fu;ksftr deZpkjh ugha Fks vkSj u gh foHkkx }kjk e`rd dks osru fn;k tkrk Fkk] mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk vkSj foHkkx dh vksj ls fjdkMZ nkf[ky u djus dk foijhr izHkko foi{kh ij gh iM+rk gSA tSlk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dh [kaMihB }kjk 2009 ¼1½ ,0lh0lh0Mh0 23 ¼byk0½ esa fl)kUr izfrikfnr gS D;k fu;ksaDrk] fu;ksDrk vkSj deZpkjh dk laca/k ls badkj djrk gS vkSj mifLFkfr o osru jftLVj izLrqr ugha djrk rks deh'uj fu;ksDrk ds fo:) izfrdwy fu"d"kZ fudkyus esa U;k;ksfpr gS\ vfHkfu/kkZfjr] gka&,sls nLrkost fu;ksDrk dh vfHkj{kk esa gS] eSa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ls lger gksrs gq, oknhx.k ds dFku dks lgh ekurs gq, oknhx.k ds e`rd iq= dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa gksuk Lohdkj djrk gwaA esjh jk; esa oknhx.k dk iq= vt; dqekj foi{khx.k }kjk fu;qDr deZpkjh Fkk vkSj mldh nq?kZVuk fu;kstu ds jgrs gq, fu;kstu ds vuqdze esa ?kfVr gqbZA ;fn fdUgh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g ekuk tk;s fd e`rd vt; dqekj foi{khx.k }kjk fu;qDr deZpkjh ugha Fkk vkSj mlds }kjk voS/kkfud :i ls ljdkjh foHkkx ds fctyh ds dk;Z fd;k tk jgk Fkk rks ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fctyh foHkkx dks oknhx.k ds fo:) U;kf;d dk;Zokgh@izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djkuh pkfg, Fkh tSlk fd i=koyh ds voyksdu ij ik;k x;k fd fctyh foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk u rks dksbZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h vkSj u gh U;kf;d dk;Zokgh viuk;h xbZA mDr ls izfroknh ds dFku vlR; ,oa vk/kkjghu izrhr gksrk gS] ftUgsa Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr izrhr ugha gksrkA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa eSa e`rd dk fu;kstu] fu;kstu ds vuqdze esa nq?kZVuk o ykbZueSu dk in Lohdkj djrk gwaA foi{kh dks {kfriwfrZ vnk djus dk mRrjnk;h ekurk gwaA deZdkj dh vk;q QksVks igpku i= esa vafdr tUe frfFk 5-2-1986 vuqlkj nq?kZVuk dh frfFk 22-6-2012 dks 26 o"kZ ekurk gwa o osru dk dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; u gksus ds dkj.k jktkKk }kjk U;wure osru ¼dq'ky½ :i;s 5729@& dk 50 izfr'kr ;kfu :i;s 2865@& ekurs gq, {kfriwfrZ :i;s 6-16]772@& vo/kkfjr djrk gwa] ftls vnk djus dk nkf;Ro foi{kh dk gksxkA vf/kfu;e 1923 dh /kkjk 4¼1½ ch ds varxZr oknhx.k dks Hkqxrku gksus dh le; lhek ,d ekg izkfo/kkfur gS] ijUrq oknhx.kksa dks vkt rd Hkqxrku izkIr ugha gqvk gS] ftls n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, foi{khx.k dks ;g uksfVl fn;k tkrk gS fd og foyEc ls gq, Hkqxrku ij viuk Li"Vhdj.k vkns'k dh frfFk ls 15 fnu ds vUnj izLrqr djsa vkSj ;g Hkh Li"V djsa fd D;ksa u muds fo:) ewy {kfriwfrZ dk 50 izfr'kr vFkZn.M vo/kkfjr dj fn;k tk;s ;fn le; lhek esa Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k tkrk rks foi{khx.k ds fo:) vFkZn.M vo/kkfjr dj fn;k tk;sxk] ftldk leLr nkf;Ro foi{khx.k Lo;a dk gksxkA vkns'k mDr foospuk mijkUr deZpkjh izfrdj vf/kfu;e 1923 dh /kkjk 4¼1½ , esa iznRr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, eSa {kfriwfrZ :i;s 6]16]772@& ¼N% yk[k lksyg gtkj lkr lkS cgRrj ek=½ vo/kkfjr djrk gwa] ftls vnk djus dk nkf;Ro foi{kh 1&vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk fo|qr forj.k [k.M 33 ds0oh0 udqM [k.M] udqM ftyk lgkjuiqj dk gksxk foi{kh dks vkns'k fn;s tkrs gSa fd og vkns'k dh frfFk ds 30 fnu ds Hkhrj v/kksgLrk{kjh U;k;ky; esa v/kksgLrk{kjh ds in uke vk;qDr deZdkj izfrdj ds uke ls cSad Mªk¶V ds ek/;e ls tek djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA ;fn vkns'k ds 30 fnu ds Hkhrj vo/kkfjr /kujkf'k tek ugha djk;h tkrh gS rks vkns'k ds frfFk ls 12 izfr'kr lk/kkj.k C;kt Hkh tek djus dk nkf;Ro foi{kh dk gksxk vkSj muds fo:) olwyh izek.k&i= tkjh dj fn;k tk;sxk] ftldk leLr nkf;Ro foi{kh Lo;a dk gksxkA mDr vkns'k vkt fnukad 6-2-1913 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa eqnz.k ls tkjh fd;k x;kA** In the circumstances, the findings record by the Tribunal as well as evidence on record, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 6,16,772/- as compensation to the claimants-respondents as death of their son was caused during course of employment holding him to be an employee. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.