Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This appeal is instituted against the order dated 30.7.2007 rendered by the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act, Nahan, in case No. 3/2006. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondents No.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the “claimants”) instituted a petition under section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act seeking compensation on account of death of Manish Kumar. Appellant engaged deceased Manish Kumar alongwith others for maintenance and up-keep of the college building and furniture. On 1.6.2005 at about 12.45 P.M., deceased Manish Kumar was electrocuted while he was in the employment of appellant. He was being paid a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per month as wages. He was 19 years old. 3. Petition was contested by the appellant. Relationship of employer and employee was denied. According to the appellant, deceased was engaged by one Sh. Babu Ram. 4. Issues were framed by the Commissioner. He awarded a sum of Rs. 4,50,440/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of accident till the recovery/deposit of the entire amount of compensation. The claimants were also held entitled to penalty @ 20% of the compensation vide order dated 30.7.2007. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 4.3.2008: i) “Whether the deceased was a workman covered under the Act? ii) Whether the Apex Court Judgment reported as LIJ 2002-III-523 Luxminarayannan Shetty vs. Shantha squarely covers the present case.” 5. Mr. Anuj Nag has vehemently argued that deceased was not a workman and the case was squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Luxminarayannan Shetty vs. Shantha and another, 2002-III-LLJ 523. 6. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel has supported the order dated 30.7.2007. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 8. Since both the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 9. PW-1 Jai Pal has deposed that his son was engaged by the appellant for doing the work of paint, polish and white wash in the college building. His son died during the course of employment on 1.6.2005. He has proved copy of FIR Ex.P-1 and post-mortem report Ex.P-2. 10. 9. PW-1 Jai Pal has deposed that his son was engaged by the appellant for doing the work of paint, polish and white wash in the college building. His son died during the course of employment on 1.6.2005. He has proved copy of FIR Ex.P-1 and post-mortem report Ex.P-2. 10. PW-2 Subhash Chand has deposed that deceased was doing the work of white wash and paint in the college. He was paid Rs. 150/- per day. Deceased died while he was white washing in temple. 11. RW-1 Amit Kansal has proved receipt Ex.D-1 signed by Subhash Chand. However, this document does not clarify whether the payment was made for rate contract or wages for doing the work by the alleged contractor. 12. There was employer and employee relationship between the deceased and appellant. Deceased was engaged by the appellant. Claimants are legal heirs of deceased Manish Kumar. Appellant has not led any tangible evidence that deceased was employed by the contractor. In view of this, the judgment Luxminarayannan Shetty vs. Shantha and another, 2002-III-LLJ 523 cited by Mr. Anuj Nag is not applicable to the facts of present case. It is reiterated that deceased was employed as workman by the appellant and not by any contractor. The monthly wages of the deceased were Rs. 4,500/-. Learned Commissioner has correctly applied the factor of 225.22 since the age of the deceased was 19 years. Claimants have rightly been granted interest @ 12% with penalty @ 20% of the compensation amount. 13. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.