JUDGMENT:- 1. One Mr.Sagayaraj was a Salai Paniyalar employed by the appellants, viz. Highways and Rural Works Department. The appellant Department has to lay roads. They employed Salai Paniyalargal for the said purpose. They are at the lowest level and they are mazdoors. The said Sagayaraj and others were on duty on 21.02.2002 in the loading and unloading of the well gravel in a tractor. While so, they traveled in the tractor and trailor. The tractor met with an accident and the said Sagayaraj was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli and he died on 05.03.2002. The wife of the deceased workman and two minor children as well as the mother of the deceased filed a claim petition in W.C.No.245 of 2002 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli claiming a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. The appellants filed a counter statement stating that on 21.02.2002 the said Sagayaraj was on duty along with three other gang mazdoors in Pullambodi Sirugalappur-Padalur Road. He was directed by his immediate superior Mr.Mohamed Mascar Shariff, Road Inspector to attend to the patch work on receipt of well gravel conveyed by the tractor. The duty assigned to Sagayaraj was only closing the potholes. Contrary to the instructions, the said Sagayaraj and others got into the tractor which was intended for conveying well gravel from other sites. Instead of attending to the duties assigned to him, he violated the instructions of the superior and hence, the Department was not liable to pay compensation. It is stated that the appellants sanctioned Rs.1 lakh from the Family Benefit Fund to the dependents of Sagayaraj and hence the claim has to be rejected. 3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the wife of the deceased was examined as the first witness. The fifth respondent herein was the owner of the tractor and the sixth respondent is the owner of the trailor. The seventh respondent is the Insurance Company upon which the tractor and trailor were insured. The fifth and sixth respondents did not file counter statement before the Deputy Commissioner. The seventh respondent filed a counter statement stating that the workman was not employed by the owner of the tractor or trailor and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. 4. Before the Commissioner, P.W.1-wife of the deceased was examined. The fifth and sixth respondents did not file counter statement before the Deputy Commissioner. The seventh respondent filed a counter statement stating that the workman was not employed by the owner of the tractor or trailor and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. 4. Before the Commissioner, P.W.1-wife of the deceased was examined. P.W.2 was another Gang Mazdoor, who was employed along with the deceased on the fateful day. He stated that the Supervisor directed the deceased as well as P.W.2 and other Gang Mazdoors to bring the gravel. When they complied with the directions and sent the tractor, the tractor got involved in the accident and the said Sagayaraj died. The appellants herein examined two witnesses. The first witness was one Alandurai who was employed as Assistant in the Department. The second witness examined on the side of the Department was Mr.Mohamed Mascar Shariff, who was the immediate superior to the deceased and other Gang Mazdoors. He was the Road Inspector. On the side of the claimants, Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and on the side of the Department, no documents were marked. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour passed an order dated 02.11.2004 directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.3,29,575/- as compensation which includes Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour has categorically held that the deceased workman died out of and in the course of employment under the appellants and the appellants are liable to pay compensation. Now the appellants have come up with this appeal. 5. The following questions of law were raised in this appeal: (a) Whether the Court below is justified in fixing the liability upon the appellant when it is clearly admitted by the applicant that he was not employed by the appellant and he was employed only by the contractor? (b) Whether the Court below is justified in directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount to the applicant and recover the same from the bill of the contractor when there is no bill pending clearance for the contractor? 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader has strenuously contended that the deceased was not employed by the appellant and he was a contract workman and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has erred in fixing the liability on them. According to him, the liability should have been fixed on the contractor. 8. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader has strenuously contended that the deceased was not employed by the appellant and he was a contract workman and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has erred in fixing the liability on them. According to him, the liability should have been fixed on the contractor. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the finding of fact was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the deceased was employed by the appellants. He also submitted that in the pleadings made before the Deputy Commissioner, no such plea was taken by them and hence now, no such pleas could be taken that the deceased was not their employee. 9. I have considered the above submissions. 10. Now the learned Special Government Pleader submits that the deceased was not employed by the appellants and therefore, they are not responsible to pay compensation, but the first question of law that was framed is that the contractor is liable to pay the compensation. In fact, no document was produced by the appellants before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to the effect that the deceased was a contract workman. On the other hand, in paragraph-3 of the counter statement, they have categorically stated that the deceased Sahayaraj was employed as Gang Mazdoor in the Department. 11. The findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was that the deceased workman acted contrary to the instructions issued by the supervisor and he was not assigned to go in the tractor to bring the well gravel. Hence the Department was not liable to pay compensation. But the question of law that is now sought to be argued is that he was not a workman employed by the Department. Further, as rightly contended by the counsel for the claimants, the evidence of R.W.1-Alandurai, Assistant of the Department and R.W.2-Mohamed Mascar Shariff, Road Inspector, categorically states that the deceased was a workman employed in the Department. R.W.2 stated that he was not assigned the work of bringing well gravel, but he was asked to do patch work. But however no documents have been produced in this regard. It is not in dispute that the tractor was hired by the Department to bring well gravel. R.W.2 stated that he was not assigned the work of bringing well gravel, but he was asked to do patch work. But however no documents have been produced in this regard. It is not in dispute that the tractor was hired by the Department to bring well gravel. P.W.2 categorically stated that the deceased and other Gang Mazdoors were on the tractor to bring the well gravel and while they traveled in the tractor that was attached with the trailor, the accident took place and the workman died. Hence, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. As far as the second question of law is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that nowhere the Deputy Commissioner has directed to pay the compensation and recover it from the contractor, instead, the Deputy Commissioner has directed the appellants to pay the compensation. Both the appellants 1 and 2 are forming part of the Department. In fact, even in the counter statement filed before the Commissioner, the appellants did not state that there was a contract. Only from the records, it is found that they hired the tractor and trailor from the respondents 5 and 6 and the tractor and trailor were used to bring the well gravel by the mazdoors of the Department. Hence, the second question of law also has no merit. Hence, both the questions of law are decided against the appellants. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.