JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2. Brief fact involving the appeal is that the wife, old parents and minor children of the deceased workman filed W.C. 97-D/2002 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack alleging that the deceased working as labourer in the office of the respondent no.1 for over 12 years. On 12.2.2002, the deceased-workman while working over a electric pole near Mouza-Sitaleswar in Jajpur Town Section Office met with an accident by getting electric shock fell down on the ground sustaining serious bodily injuries resulting death claimed to be arising out of and in course of employment. It is on the premises of particular remuneration being received by the deceased at the relevant point of time, claim application was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. It also came to light that involving said accident, U.D. Case No.8 of 2002 was also registered by the Police. Neither the Commissioner in judgment nor appeal memorandum have filed by the establishment brings anything on the written statement if filed by the establishment. In the trial proceeding it however comes to light that in the trial the claimants examined 4 witnesses and also filed several documents by way of exhibits and on the contrary, the opposite party, i.e. the present appellant no.1 also filed some documents and adduced oral witness as OPW Nos.1 to 3 to controvert the claim of the claimants. In the first instance after considering the oral version and documentary evidence of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack by its judgment dated 7.12.2005 answering the issues in favour of the claimants directed for payment of compensation by the establishment-present respondents. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.12.2005 in W.C. Case No.97-D/2002, the establishment preferred an appeal before this Court under Section 30 of the W.C. Act, 1923 bearing F.A.O.No.82 of 2006. This Court upon final hearing of that F.A.O. being satisfied with the grounds raised by the establishment, by order dated 8.8.2008 interfering in the judgment dated 7.12.2005 remitted back the matter to the Commissioner for re-consideration on the aspect of workmen the employer and the employee relationship but, however, entering into a fresh consideration and also giving reasonable opportunity to the parties involved. It is on remand of the matter, the claimants adduced P.W.5 and have also filed series of documents to establish employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the establishment whereas the opposite partiesrespondents during re-trial could not able to file any other new documentary evidence but have adduced only oral evidence through OPWs 4 and 5. It is basing on the further plea and materials, W.C. Case No.97-D/2002 was freshly disposed of but, however observing that there is no relationship between the workman and the establishment thereby dismissing the W.C. Case giving rise to the filing of the present appeal. In filing the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants contested the case on the following grounds: On the further adjudication of the proceeding even though the claimants side produced further plea and evidence and in absence of any cogent evidence at the instance of the establishment, the view of the Commissioner in dismissing the claim case remains contrary to the material available and secondly, the impugned judgment remains contrary to the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants next submits that once the matter was remanded by the High Court for fresh adjudication, there ought to have been re-disposal of the claim case at least on the issue of incident in course and arising out of employment under the establishment and then to decide on the question of amount of compensation. 4. It is alleged that the commissioner even though recorded the direction of the High Court in remand of the matter, the Commissioner unfortunately adhering to the evidence of P.W.5 decided the whole case. The sole observation of the Commissioner is that the Establishment produced the document relating to Wage Register and Attendance Register, which were marked as EXts.'A' & 'B' respectively and in the said Registers, the name of Late Paramananda Jena nowhere found and thus the claimants failed in establishing Master & Servant relationship between the parties. Learned counsel herein submits that for the open remand of the case, it was required on the part of the Commissioner to examine the whole evidence and come to conclusion involving such important issue and thus contended that there is failure of discharge of application of legal mind in deciding such matter. Learned counsel herein submits that for the open remand of the case, it was required on the part of the Commissioner to examine the whole evidence and come to conclusion involving such important issue and thus contended that there is failure of discharge of application of legal mind in deciding such matter. Further taking this Court to the evidence of some of the claimants witnesses, there is also attempt to establish that there was clear material available to establish that the deceased was a temporary employee and was engaged by the establishment on the fateful day and for the nature of work even performed by the deceased at the relevant point of time as an NMR employee, the name of the deceased could not have been found in the registers vide Exts. 'A' & 'B' since it involves permanent employees. For the claimants being the legal heirs, defending the case of the deceased involving a claim case, it is submitted that for the material available through oral evidence of several witnesses at the instance of the claimants, it is contended that if the Commissioner could have taken all the evidence into consideration the judgment of the Commissioner would have been otherwise. 5. Sri Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 on the other hand through the OPWs and the material support through Ext. 'A' and 'B' attempted to justify the judgment passed by the Commissioner. For the production of the copy of the Exts.'A' & 'B' by the counsel appearing for the appellants, giving reference to these documents, Sri Acharya, learned counsel contended that there was absolutely no material to establish that the deceased at any point of time was under employment of the establishment. It is in this view of the matter, Sri Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 3 while attempting to justify the impugned judgment prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the claim application involved an accident and death of the deceased was due to coming in contact of electricity. Reason of death also finds from the U.D. G.R. Case No.30 of 2002 due to shock and head injury. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the claim application involved an accident and death of the deceased was due to coming in contact of electricity. Reason of death also finds from the U.D. G.R. Case No.30 of 2002 due to shock and head injury. Final report in U.D.G.R. Case No.30 of 2002 prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C. has a clear indication that in Police inquiry it has been ascertained that the deceased fell down from the electric pole at Sitaleswar while he was working there for which he received head injury and became measures. Treatment though given, it could not see recovery and finally the deceased died involving such accident. On scan of the evidence also this Court finds apart from claimant, there has been some witnesses on behalf of the establishment where one Rajkishore Parida appearing as OPW 2 working as Junior Engineer at the relevant point of time though disputed the engagement of the deceased-Paramananda Jena but had made it clear that he had no direct knowledge regarding accident involved herein on 12.2.2002. At the same time, on scrutiny of evidence of OPW 3 from the side of the Establishment, this Court finds this person has also categorically stated that he had no knowledge regarding the accident and employment of the deceased- Paramananda Jena and clarified that the Junior Engineer is to take attendance and distribution of work. Surprisingly the Junior Engineer even though has been examined, but did bring record involving NMR employees. The Executive Engineer has been subsequently examined vide remand order as OPW-5. He has also made it clear that neither he has any knowledge regarding the incident nor he has personal knowledge about the employment and he has deposed before the authority only on the basis of documents. 7. Now coming to scan the evidence from the side of claimants, this Court finds apart from claimants' witnesses by way of family members, the claimants have also examined some official witnesses of the establishment. P.W.2 an employee working in No.1 Section, No.1 Sub-Division at Jajpur as a lineman has a clear evidence that Paramananda Jena is dead and he died by electric shock while working on a pole belonging to Electricity Department. P.W.2 an employee working in No.1 Section, No.1 Sub-Division at Jajpur as a lineman has a clear evidence that Paramananda Jena is dead and he died by electric shock while working on a pole belonging to Electricity Department. This person has clearly stated that the accident occurred on 12.2.2002 at 11.30 A.M. near Siteleswar while the deceased was working on the electric pole, electric wire touched on his head. He then fell down from the electric pole to the ground. At that time, he and one Babuli Sethi, Staff, Gopal Parida, Staff, J.E.No.1 Section along with other villagers were there on the spot at the time of occurrence. This departmental person again submits as follows: "The work which was performed by us as ordered/ instructed by S.D.O., Gouranga Das. J.E. Parida Babu told the deceased to work in the electric pole. The accident occurred during the course of his employment." 8. Similarly, it also appears from the statement of P.W.5, who claimed to be a retired employee in October, 2008 subsequent to the incident clearly stating that the deceased was on duty on the effective date. This Court here finds in spite of two of the departmental employees deposing on behalf of the claimants both are claiming that the J.E. Parida Babu had the instruction to the deceased to work at the relevant point of time. It is at this stage, this Court finds the J.E. Parida Babu produced as OPW No.2 by way of oral evidence attempted to resist such incident taking place. This Court finds the evidence from the side of the claimants particularly in absence of production of documents involving NMR/Casual Employees runs heavier than oral evidence at the instance of the establishment. It is in this situation, this Court herein takes into account a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Parameshwaran v. M.K.Parameshwaran Nair,1991 1 TAC 416 . In considering a case of casual engagement, the Kerala High Court in its Division Bench through this judgment in paragraphs-10 and 11 come to observe as follows: "10. We have to bear in mind that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial social legislation which was enacted to supply the need to provide compensation to workmen sustaining employment injuries. In considering a case of casual engagement, the Kerala High Court in its Division Bench through this judgment in paragraphs-10 and 11 come to observe as follows: "10. We have to bear in mind that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial social legislation which was enacted to supply the need to provide compensation to workmen sustaining employment injuries. A strict and ritualistic adherence to the procedural formalities of a trial is neither necessary nor desirable in deciding the question of entitlement of the injured employees for compensation. Nor are the Commissioners who administer that legislation qualified or competent to conduct a formal trial. A more realistric and less formal approach is called for from authorities functioning under this beneficial enactment. They shall not pretend themselves to be Courts and try to discover ways to defeat the very purpose of the enactment by adopting a totally negative approach to the claims which the disabled workmen advance before them. Many of the provisions of the statute point out to this need for absence of rigidity on the part of the Commissioner in dealing with claims for compensation. The need for such relaxation was emphasised in various decisions of this Court. We need cite only two of the decisions: In Mohammed Koya v. Balan, (1987) 1 LLN 352 , a Division Bench of this Court held, that the requirement of a notice under S. !0 of the Act to the employer shall not be a reason for a rigid interpretation and that want of notice or any defect or irregularity in notice shall not bar entertainment of a claim if the employer had knowledge of the accident. In Pushpam v. Bonami Estate,1988 1 LLN 869 , it was held, in Para. 10 at page 873, that: "It is true, that S. 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act confers all the powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, for purposes of taking evidence on oath and the enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling production of documents and material objects. That provision, however, does not constitute the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner as a "Court" for all purposes. Nor does that provision have the effect of disabling the Commissioner from exercising such powers as to further the beneficial objects of that enactment. That provision, however, does not constitute the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner as a "Court" for all purposes. Nor does that provision have the effect of disabling the Commissioner from exercising such powers as to further the beneficial objects of that enactment. No provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act disabled an authority like the Commissioner from rectifying an apparent error in the application submitted by an illiterate applicant, whose claim for compensation was denied by the employer." 11. We hold that the Commissioner who was administering a beneficial legislation meant to advance the cause of employees for compensation in respect of employment injuries was obliged to act in furtherance of the intention of the statute and not to stultify the same by rigid and mechanical approaches. If the claimant before him was a workman as defined in S. 2(n) of the Act, he should have seen to it that the workman receives the compensation. It is unfortunate that he embrodled himself in a highly technical debate which would enable him to exclude the applicant from the purview of the definition by adopting an artificiality which was contrary to the terms of the statute as understood by this Court in Kochu Velu [1980-II L.L.N. 564] (vide supra). The inconsistencies in the plea and the evidence of the employer, his refusal to produce relevant evidence and the total unreliable nature of the evidence consisting of exhibits M1 and M2 which he produced should have aletred the Commissioner to be wary in accepting the defence of the employer. In the light of the decided cases, which we have referred to, we have no hesitation in holding that the claimant was a workman since he was employed in connection with the trade or business of the employer, though such employment was casual in nature. We hold further that the material evidence relating to his employment was deliberately kept back by the employer. We hold that the Commissioner should have drawn inferences adverse to the employer from the above conduct." 9. Similarly in the case of Leela Bai and Another v. Seema Chouhan and Another, (2019) 1 TAC 735 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the nexus between accident and the employment applying doctrine of notional extension of the employment held the claimants have been wrongly denied compensation. Similarly in the case of Leela Bai and Another v. Seema Chouhan and Another, (2019) 1 TAC 735 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the nexus between accident and the employment applying doctrine of notional extension of the employment held the claimants have been wrongly denied compensation. In case at hand, this Court finds there is no dispute that the deceased died while working on the electric pole belonging to the electricity Department. Therefore, a clear inference can be drawn that unless the Department authorizes no person can dare to ride into a electric pole to attend work. 10. In the above background of the case, this Court while observing that judgment of the Commissioner in W.C. Case No.97-D/2002 remains perverse being contrary to the evidence on record and opposed the principle enunciated through the decision of the Kerala High Court as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated hereinabove, entering on the determination of the Commissioner on employer & employee relationship, holds there exists employer & employee relationship and therefore, the establishment is liable to pay compensation. 11. The Commissioner for his finding on employer and employee relationship has not attended to the issue of compensation, this Court in setting aside the impugned judgment is constrained to remit the matter back again to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack for re-adjudication only on the aspect of amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in course and arising out of employment. For there is definite entitlement of compensation to the claimants and keeping in view the sufficient loss of time, this Court while directing the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack to conclude the issue on the aspect of compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment through either side, this Court also directs the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack within a period of two weeks hence and the deposited amount shall be released in favour of the claimants within a period of one week thereafter. This release will however be subject to the adjustment in the ultimate determination of compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack. 12. This release will however be subject to the adjustment in the ultimate determination of compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds to the extent indicated hereinabove, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to cost.