A thereafter permitted to cross the efficiency bar. It may here be menuoned tnat after his appointment, the appellant was give11 training in the Madras companf for two months after which it is alleged that the Director had asked him to go to the Palla".aram company to work there. Even while working there his salary was being paid by the Madras company though it wa,s by an B arrangement between the two companies being debited to the Pallavaram company. The appellant continued to work tn the Pallavaram company till 15th October, 1966 on which date his services were terminated by the holding company: The appellant thereupon filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner for Workman's Compensation under section 41 (2) of the Workc men's Compensation Act. The 1st respondent, however, raised an objection bi:fore the dditional Commissioner that the appellant was not a person employed within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, the provisions of the said Act would not be applicable to him. In view of this objection, was filed by the appellant under section 51 of the Act for declaring that he is a person employed and some time thereafter got his application under section 41 (2) stayed. The between the parties on th~ application tinder section 51 as well as under section 41 ( 2) was whether the appellant was an employee of the holding company or of the subsidiary company. The appellant claimed that . under the terms of the offer of appointment which was accepted by him he was required to work either in the Madras office or the Palla- E varam office or at any other office or place of business of the company and though he was working in the Pallavaram office, his . salary was being paid by the holding company, his bonus for the year ending 1964 was also paid by that company which alSO' terminated his services. The 1st respondent averred that though the· petitioner might ha¥e been appointed or dismissed by the Madras F company he was actually a person employed in the Pallavaram company. It was also admitted that while the sruary of the appellant was paid initially by the Madras company it was recovered from the Pallavarani company as is evident front the registers of account maintained that such recoveries from the Pallavaram company was effected, and that for the purposes · of !h~ Act what is relevant is not. 'employment by' but employment G m . If so as he was employed m the Pallavarm company he was not a person employed within the difinition of ithe Act by the Madras company. The Commissioner of Labour by his order of 9th January, 1968 accepted the !st respondent's contention and held that te petitione(cannot be declared to be a person employd under secuon 2(12) (m) of the Act and that even under section H 2(12) (ii) of the Act, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person employed vis-a-vis the Pallavaram Company as admittedly the avoellant was not a member of the clerical staff employed in the Pallavaram company. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
