JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The instant Appeal is directed against the order of 7.12.2009, rendered by the learned Commissioner, for Employee''s Compensation, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., while his exercising jurisdiction under the Employee''s Compensation Act, whereby, he assessed compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,01,300/- vis-a-vis the dependents/successors-in-interests, of the deceased employee. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, submits, that one Sh. Cherring Rigzin was not the employer of the deceased workman, one Babu Lama. He cements his submission by alluding to an echoing occurring in the cross-examination of PW-3, qua her deceased husband being under the employment of one Gialson, with whom, the insurer never executed any binding contract of insurance, thereupon the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability(s) upon the insurance company, hence suffering from a gross patent illegality. The aforesaid submissions'' impinge upon the crucial imperative statutory fact, of, at the relevant point of time, the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, holding employment under one Chhering Rigzin, besides only upon rendition of an affirmative verdict qua the aforesaid trite statutory fact, would, render the fastening of apposite indemnificatory liabilities upon the insurance company, to hold validity. 3. As aforestated, though, the aforesaid echoings displaying qua purported lack of any subsisting contract of employment existing inter-se the purported employer of the deceased workman with the insurance company, whereas, uncontrovertedly an apposite validly executed contract of insurance standing entered inter-se deceased respondent No. 1 and the insurer, do find occurrence, in a part of the cross-examination of PW-3, yet, conclusive clinching reliance cannot be placed thereon, given the aforesaid echoings standing succeeded by the widow of the deceased workman, subsequently making articulations, of her deceased husband 5-6 years prior to hers'' rendering her testification hence holding employment under one Gialson, thereupon an inference emerges, of, with the relevant mishap occurring in the year 2003, hence the period whereat the deceased workman held employment under one Gialson, not, appertaining to the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the ill-fated occurrence, rendering hence the aforesaid admission to be insignificant, in firmly pronouncing besides resting the aforesaid crucial statutory fact. 4. Respondent No. 1 Chhering Rigzin, expired, during the pendency of the claim Petition before the learned Commissioner. Consequently, an application was instituted before the learned Commissioner for his being substituted by his LRs. 4. Respondent No. 1 Chhering Rigzin, expired, during the pendency of the claim Petition before the learned Commissioner. Consequently, an application was instituted before the learned Commissioner for his being substituted by his LRs. The learned Commissioner, as borne in order(s), recorded, on 12.9.2009, his thereat upon his being apprised, of, respondent No. 1 no longer surviving, his proceeding to ask for filing of his legal representative certificate. The aforesaid order, does also, reveal that the learned Commissioner hence proceeded to permit the LRs of respondent No. 1 to be brought on record. Also, amended memo of parties in compliance thereof was placed on record by the counsel concerned, whereafter reflection(s) in consonance therewith, do not, occur in the impugned order, reflections whereof be made by the learned Commissioner. 5. Nowat, with the LRs of the, deceased workman, filing a reply to the aforesaid application, wherein, they echoed, of, the deceased workman rendering employment under one Chhering Rigzin, deceased respondent No. 1, at, the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the ill-fated mishap, whereas, neither the applicant concerned nor the insurance company, by, instituting befitting response(s) thereto, not, controverting the aforesaid fact, does also constrain a conclusion of the insurance company acquiescing qua the deceased workman Babu Lama, holding, a contract of employment under one Chhering Rigzin, deceased respondent No. 1. Since all the aforesaid conclusions clearly depict, of all, the statutory canons, for, rendering the apposite application maintainable vis-a-vis deceased respondent No. 1, hence begetting satiation, thereupon with the insurance company, not, contesting the factum, of, a valid contract of insurance being executed with deceased respondent No. 1, sequel thereof, is of, the fastening of the apposite liabilities upon the insurance company, not, suffering from any illegality or absurdity. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not press issue No. 2, hence the same is decided accordingly as not pressed. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in this Appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. Impugned order is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.