JUDGMENT Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral) - This group of appeals has been filed against two awards dated 22.8.2005. 2. The brief facts are that Nanhe Lal and Hukam Singh were homeguard volunteers and were deputed to work as Watchman with the Haryana Warehousing Corporation. On 23/24.7.2003 while they were on duty a gang of robbers struck the warehouse and killed both of them and robbed valuables. Two applications were filed for compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Both the employees were about 35 years old. The Commissioner awarded them the amount as per provisions Schedule IV. One appeal has been filed by the appellants Smt, Santa Devi and others (legal representatives of Nanhe Lal) bearing No. FAO No. 2315 of 2007 claiming enhancement. Two appeals bearing Nos. FAO Nos. 5112 and 5113 of 2005 have been filed by the Haryana Warehousing Corporation while the appeal bearing Nos. FAO Nos. 4874 and 4875 of 2005 have been filed by the State of Haryana. 3. Coming to the appeal filed by the claimants learned counsel is not in a position to show how the compensation awarded is not as per the provisions of Schedule IV. Consequently, the appeal bearing No. FAO No. 2315 of 2007 is dismissed. 4. In the appeals filed by the State of Haryana the essential claim is that since the deceased were working as Watchman with the Haryana Warehousing Corporation the liability to pay compensation should be foisted on the Haryana Warehousing Corporation and the Commissioner has erred in dividing the compensation into two amounts asking both the parties to deposit their share. The primary argument of the Haryana Warehousing Corporation is that the deceased were not employed with it at any stage and they are not liable to pay it. The common ground taken by both the State of Haryana and Haryana Warehousing Corporation is that the deceased were 'volunteer' homeguard and consequently could not have been held to be workmen. The primary argument of the Haryana Warehousing Corporation is that the deceased were not employed with it at any stage and they are not liable to pay it. The common ground taken by both the State of Haryana and Haryana Warehousing Corporation is that the deceased were 'volunteer' homeguard and consequently could not have been held to be workmen. Section 2 (i) Clause dd (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 employee means a person who is- "(i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II; or (ii) (a) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship, (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft, (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle, (d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India; or (iii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to any employee who has been injured shall, where the employee is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them;]" 5. Viewed from this stand point it would be seen that two deceased were working as Watchman and were being paid Rs. 100/- per day by the Corporation. The argument that the deceased were 'volunteer' homeguard and were not employee cannot be accepted. Once it is shown that they were working as Watchman and were being paid the mere fact that they went under the nomenclature of 'volunteer' would not be determinative. What would be determinative would be that they were working as Watchman and were being paid as such. Once it is shown that they were working as Watchman and were being paid the mere fact that they went under the nomenclature of 'volunteer' would not be determinative. What would be determinative would be that they were working as Watchman and were being paid as such. Consequently, this argument is rejected and the challenge in the remaining appeals with regard to the award of compensation is rejected. 6. As regards the issue of apportionment of compensation, I do not deem it appropriate to exercise my mind on this aspect. Both the contesting parties are affiliated, in so much as the Haryana State Warehousing Corporation is a government company owned by the State of Haryana. Thus, I deem it appropriate to refer the matter to a committee consisting of the Additional Chief Secretary Home (under whom the homeguard establishment serves) and the Additional Chief Secretary, Industries (under whom the Haryana Warehousing Corporation functions) to jointly sit down and amicably resolve this issue. Ordered accordingly. Appeals stand disposed of. 7. Since the main cases have been decided, the pending C.M, if any, also stands disposed of.