JUDGMENT 1. - This civil misc. appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') by which the claim petition filed by the respondents claimants (hereinafter 'the claimants') was allowed and a direction was issued to the appellant non-claimant to pay compensation of Rs. 3,25,365/- along-with interest @ 12% p.a for the period indicated to the claimants. 2. From the facts on record it appears that while a two storied house of the non-claimant appellant (hereinafter 'the appellant') was under construction, one Mukesh was engaged therein. In the course of his employment he died due to electrocution. At the time of his death Mukesh was 25 years of age. Inevitably a claim petition was filed but met with reply of denial of liability on various grounds. Employment of Mukesh was denied by the non-claimant appellant and it was stated that Mukesh was in-fact employed with one Kailash Chand Gupta- a contractor through whom Mukesh's services had been temporarily requisitioned by the appellant. In these circumstances the liability for payment of compensation to the dependants of Mukesh- the claimants was sought to be shifted on the contractor Kailash Chand Gupta who had also been impleaded as a non-claimant before the Commissioner. The respondent non-claimant Kailash Chand Gupta in his reply expectedly denied any relationship of employer with the deceased Mukesh. 3. On the pleadings of the parties the Commissioner framed three issues. The first issue was as to whether the deceased Mukesh was in the employment of non-claimants on 28.4.2004 at the time of his death. The second issue was as to whether at the relevant time the age of the deceased Mukesh was 25 years and he was earning a salary of Rs. 4,500/- p.m while he was employed with the non-claimants. The third issue was as to what compensation, interest penalty the claimants were entitled to get and whether the non-claimants were liable jointly or severally. 4. On consideration of the evidence on record the Commissioner found that on 28.4.2004 Mukesh died of electrocution while engaged in the course of construction of the house of the non-claimant appellant. It was found that the deceased Mukesh had been engaged at the relevant time by the non-claimant appellant through the respondent non-claimant. 4. On consideration of the evidence on record the Commissioner found that on 28.4.2004 Mukesh died of electrocution while engaged in the course of construction of the house of the non-claimant appellant. It was found that the deceased Mukesh had been engaged at the relevant time by the non-claimant appellant through the respondent non-claimant. Further finding from the evidence that the deceased Mukesh was 25 years of age at the time of his death and his wages @ Rs. 100/- per day (minimum wages) aggregating to Rs. 3,000/- p.m, the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 3,25,365/- along-with interest from the date of accident till the date of the payment to the claimants. 5. I have heard the counsel for the appellant non-claimant and the respondents claimants/non-claimant. 6. Section 2 (dd) & (e) of the Employee's Compensation Act 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1923') define respectively an employee and an employer. An employee has been stated inter-alia to be one who is inter-alia employed in any capacity specified in Schedule-II and an employer expansively defined to include also persons to whom an employee is lent by his immediate employer. In the context of the aforesaid definitions of employer and employee from the evidence on record it cannot be doubted that Mukesh was an employee of the non-claimant appellant covered under the Act of 1923. That being the conclusion, the entitlement of the claimants- as the parents of the deceased Mukesh remained a mathematical question with reference to his admitted age of 25 years. Minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time was Rs. 100/- per day aggregating to Rs. 3,000/- p.m- this the Commissioner rightly took as the wages of Mukesh at the time of his death for reason of any concrete evidence as to his wages claimed Rs. 4,500/- p.m being absent. In these circumstances the compensation based on evidence on record is based on objective consideration. No perversity can be attributed thereto. No substantial question of law is thus made out in the appeal as laid. 7. The appeal is without force and is dismissed. The amount of compensation in deposit with the Commissioner shall now consequently be paid to the respondents claimants.Stay application stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******