JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment of the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C. Case No.30 of 2000 thereby holding the claimant injured therein to be working under the employment of the present Appellants and as a consequence upon holding that such workman sustained injury in course of and arising out of employment under the Appellants, the Commissioner has granted compensation of Rs.70,070/- with interest accrued thereon to be paid by the Appellants within a period of thirty days in favour of the claimant. 2. Short background involved in this case is that the Respondent being the claimant filed W.C. Case No.30 of 2000 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bhubaneswar on the plea that on 19.09.1998 on the asking of the Assistant Manager Electrical, NALCO for giving temporary power supply to the Pendal erected by the worker's union near the Community Center of the NALCO, the Claimant-Respondent while engaged in such work on account of suffering from electric shock received serious injury. It is, on the premises that he suffered injury in course of employment and arising out of employment filed the claim application involved herein. In the first round of litigation on their appearance the present Appellants- the NALCO filed written statement denying the claim of the Respondent. It is the specific case of the Appellants that neither the claimant was a workman of NALCO nor sustained any injury during course of employment. It is, in the premises that there was no master and servant relationship between the claimant and the NALCO, the NALCO objected the entertainability of the claim application. To substantiate his case the claimant examined three witnesses and the so called employer the present Appellants have examined four witnesses to support their case. Both the parties also filed several documents. In the first round of litigation it appears, the W.C. Case was disposed of on 24.01.2008 allowing the claim of the claimant by awarding a sum of Rs.70,070/- as compensation required to be paid by the present Appellants. These Appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.01.2008 in W.C. Case No.30 of 2000 preferred FAO No.153 of 2008. In the first round of litigation it appears, the W.C. Case was disposed of on 24.01.2008 allowing the claim of the claimant by awarding a sum of Rs.70,070/- as compensation required to be paid by the present Appellants. These Appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.01.2008 in W.C. Case No.30 of 2000 preferred FAO No.153 of 2008. After hearing both the parties, it appears, this High Court disposed of the FAO No.153 of 2008 vide its judgment dated 3.07.2008 whereby setting aside the judgment dated 24.01.2008, this Court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after providing opportunity of hearing to the Parties concerned. Consequently the W.C. case was reopened and on reopening of the proceeding the claimant did not adduce any further evidence. Learned Commissioner again on the basis of the previous evidence allowed the W.C. Case by its judgment dated 15.11.2012 reiterating the direction of the previous Commissioner thereby asking the present Appellants again to pay compensation of Rs.70,070/- to the Claimant-Respondent within a period of 30 days. 3. It is alleged that even though the Commissioner posted the matter on 22.03.2012 for argument and the Appellants concluded its argument, the matter was again posted to 5.04.2012 for hearing. On which date the Appellants submitted their written argument and the Commissioner again entertained the argument on 30.05.2012 and while concluding the hearing involving both the Parties the Commissioner posted the matter to 19.06.2012 for judgment. Unfortunately on 19.06.2012 no judgment was passed and even there was further posting of the case. Surprisingly on 15.11.2012 it is after lapse of about six months time the impugned judgment was passed without even any notice or intimation to the Appellants. 4. Assailing the impugned judgment Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that for the clear revealing from the case of the so called workman that he himself was a Contractor, there was no occasion on the part of the Commissioner to treat a Contractor as workman. Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the Commissioner has made mistake in holding that the Claimant- Respondent has received injury during course of employment, despite admission made by the Respondent in his evidence that in respect of the work involved the accident occurred, neither there was any written order nor he has raised any bill in respect of the said work. It is thus contended that if at all the claimant was working, the same was unauthorized and without the knowledge of the Company-Appellants. It is thus alleged that despite the remand order giving opportunity to the Parties to adduce further evidence, the Claimant neither produced any witness nor filed a single scrap of paper to support his case. It is only after conclusion of the argument from the side of the Appellants; it appears the ClaimantRespondent adduced only one witness on 27.04.2012, which has taken place behind back of the Appellants even. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, therefore, contended that for the Commissioner recording evidence of such witness in absence of Appellants, the Appellants filed petition on 18.05.2012 to expunge such evidence and there was, however, no order on such application and the Commissioner acted upon such defective evidence and there is no scope of cross-examination to the Appellants involving such witness. 5. Coming to the drawal of wage aspect involving the Claimant, it is alleged that there is admission of the Claimant that payment whatever made to him by the Company were all received in the name of the Firm M/s. Rabindra Electrical Works. Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate thus contended that there were no materials at all to support the case of the Claimant that he was a workman under the employer-Appellants and there is even no material in establishing that the accident arose in course of employment by the employer. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate thus contended that the findings of the Commissioner run contrary to the materials available on record. The impugned judgment is also challenged on the premises that the injury indicated by the claimant does not come under the schedule of injury and as the case involves non-scheduled injury, unless the injury has any connection with the working of the employer despite establishing such aspect through Ext. 'A', the Commissioner committed error on record and thus each of its findings are perverse. 6. Referring to the decisions in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and further citing two judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court in the cases of Om Parkash Batish Vrs. Ranjit Alias Ranbir Kaur and others, (2008) 12 SCC 212 and Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. Vrs. Ramu Pasi and another, (2006) 1 SCC 377 , Mr. 6. Referring to the decisions in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and further citing two judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court in the cases of Om Parkash Batish Vrs. Ranjit Alias Ranbir Kaur and others, (2008) 12 SCC 212 and Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. Vrs. Ramu Pasi and another, (2006) 1 SCC 377 , Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants attempted to take support of the judgments on the claim of the Appellants employer and thus requested this Court for interfering in the judgment impugned herein and setting aside of the same. 7. Learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent herein taking this Court to the evidence of P.W.1 contended that the Workman in his chief has stated that he was working as a electrician at NALCO, Damanjodi and that too he was also working under the Contractors of the establishment. Further, he has also stated that he was all through working under one Mishra Babu, Assistant Engineer an employee of the NALCO. Further evidence also discloses that on the direction of Mishra Babu to provide lights to the Community center on account of Minister's visit on the eve of Biswakarma Puja, the claimant was working and sustained injury at a place belonging to NALCO and it is, at this point of time he came with the contact of electricity and suffered injury. It is, in this view of the matter, learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent submitted that there are clear materials to establish that the Claimant was working under NALCO and therefore, the Commissioner had not committed any wrong in answering the issue no.1 in favour of the workman. Taking this Court to the findings on issue no.1 learned counsel for the Claimant-Respondent attempted to justify the impugned judgment. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the claimant Rabindranath Brahma sustained injury on coming in contact with the electricity while attending to give power supply to the community center of NALCO on the eve of Biswakarma Puja. 8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the claimant Rabindranath Brahma sustained injury on coming in contact with the electricity while attending to give power supply to the community center of NALCO on the eve of Biswakarma Puja. However, taking into consideration the challenge of the establishment that there was no employer and employee relationship between the workmanClaimant and the Appellants herein, this Court on reading through the statement of the P.W.1 in chief finds, even though in the first part of the chief the claimant said that he was working under the direction of one Mishra Babu, in the latter part of his chief, it is observed that the workman has clear statement that he was working as a job contractor and even though he stated that he used to get wages for 25 days basis of working, in categoric form he has also stated that whatever payment he used to get it was through M/s.Rabindra Electrical by cheque. In course of examination this P.W.1 has again said that all the work the NALCO was executing was in the name of the above Firm and the payments were also received in the name of the said Firm and this claimant used to raise bills in respect of the work executed on the letterhead of the Firm and he was working on the basis of the job contractor. He had also in the cross-examination stated that the Pandal where he was engaged, was being prepared in connection with the meeting of the Union which was to be attended by the Union Minister and neither there was any work card directing him to do such work on 17.09.1998 nor had he raised any bill in respect of such work. In the circumstance, it becomes clear that though the claimant received injury, but he was doing work for the Union more particularly in absence of any assignment of the work by the Company even and not only this, whenever he used to work, there used to be a work order in favour of M/s. Rabindra Electricals Works and payments were also made and released in favour of M/s. Rabindra Electrical Works. This Court here takes note of the statement of the claimant /P.W.1 through his cross-examination, where he has submitted that neither there was any job card involving the work in which he sustained injury nor he has raised bill involving the said work. It is, at this stage of the matter, this Court likes to decide, as to whether this nature of work by a person can draw the definition of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 on workmen as it was operating at the time of accident and in the process, the definition at Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows: "(n) "workman" means any person who is (i) a railway servant as defined in 3[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 [(ia)(a) a master, seaman or other member 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;] (ii) 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 a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them." Looking to the definition of the workman as taken note hereinabove, this Court finds, the expression workmen as defined in the Act, 1923 does not cover a contractor. For the discussions on the evidence hereinabove, this Court finds, there is a clear admission by the workman that he was discharging duty in the NALCO as a Contractor involving a Firm and admittedly, he has never received any payment on his name. Bill, whenever occasion arises, used to be raised in the name of Firm and payments were also made in the name of Firm. It is, in the circumstance this Court observes, the application before the Commissioner was clearly not maintainable and to this extent, the Commissioner went wrong in entertaining the application. Consequently, the judgment impugned herein becomes bad. In such view of the matter, this Court interfering in the impugned judgment and award dated 15.11.2012 passed in W.C. Case No.30 of 2020 sets aside the same. This Court, in the circumstance, further directs for release of the statutory deposit along with interest accrued thereon in favour of the Appellants. 9. Looking to the impugned judgment, this Court finds, while allowing FAO No.153 of 2008 this High Court had directed the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Now looking to the manner of disposal of the case by the Commissioner, this Court observes, since there was open remand of the W.C. Case for fresh hearing giving opportunity to the parties concerned, it was required, the Commissioner should have dealt with all the issues once again looking to the evidence already on record and recorded pursuant to the direction of this Court on remand of the matter and thereafter, should have disposed of the case by dealing with all the issues together. This Court, therefore, deprecates the manner of disposal of the claim case by the Asst. Labour Commissioner-cumCommissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. 10. The FAO succeeds. However there is no order as to costs.