That an employer can maintain such separate departments in connection with his business is no longer an open question in this jurisdiction. As said by this court in Lee Way Stage Lines v. Simmons, 166 Okla. 203. 26 P.2d 905: "Under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, an employer may conduct different departments of business, some of which are within the provisions of the act and some of which are not within the provisions of the act."

The dependence of claimant is not disputed. Employment in the garage or repair shop of the Highway Department of Tulsa County under the facts herein was employment in a workshop under the provisions of 85 O.S. 1951 §§ 2[ 85-2] and 3. Gooldy v. Lawson, 155 Okla. 259, 9 P.2d 22; Lee Way Stage Lines v. Simmons, 166 Okla. 203, 26 P.2d 905. There was no error in the award of the State Industrial Commission finding that Eugene Richard Horne sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and that at the time of said accidental injury he was employed in hazardous employment within the meaning and definition of the Workmen's Compensation Law.

We deem it to be well settled that under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law an employer may conduct different departments of business, some of which are within the provisions of the act and some of which are not within the provisions of the act. Leeway Stage Lines v. Simmons, 166 Okla. 203, 26 P.2d 905; Southwestern Cotton Oil Co. v. Spurlock, 166 Okla. 97, 26 P.2d 405. We also recognize that the division must be real and not superficial or fictitious; that if the employment is for a single and entire purpose, the mere fact that the different individual departments and divisions may have different functions to perform does not constitute them any less a part of the whole.

Sunshine Food Stores et al. v. Moorehead et al., 153 Okla. 301, 5 P.2d 1066 (and authorities therein reviewed). See, also, Lee Way Stage Lines et al. v. Simmons, 166 Okla. 203, 26 P.2d 905. The fact that the injury did not actually occur in the workshop or enclosure where the power-driven machinery was installed did not render the disability noncompensable.

The employer may conduct different departments of business, some of which are within the provisions of the act and some of which are not within the provisions of the act. Leeway Stage Lines v. Simmons, 166 Okla. 203, 26 P.2d 905; Crown Drug Co. v. Hofstrom, 158 Okla. 27, 12 P.2d 519. In the case of Wilson Company v. Musgrave, 180 Okla. 246, 68 P.2d 846, it was held:

We have held that a workman injured while capping soft drink bottles by means of machinery operated by a foot pedal, where power-driven machine is used, is engaged in a hazardous employment using power-driven machinery. Teague v. State Indus. Comm., 112 Okla. 292, 240 P. 1053. For similar holdings see Lee Way Stage Lines v. Simmons, 166 Okla. 203, 26 P.2d 905; Protho v. Nette, 173 Okla. 114, 46 P.2d 942; Butler v. McKenzie, 169 Okla. 30, 35 P.2d 888. The two projection machines operated by claimant admittedly were power-driven. Operation of such machine is obviously hazardous.

That the various classes of business and industry enumerated in and defined as hazardous by the Workmen's Compensation Law may have employees engaged in various lines of business connected with their institution, some of which fall within the Compensation Act and some of which do not, has often been recognized and emphasized by this court. Stayman v. McKellop, 165 Okla. 183, 25 P.2d 710; Crown Drug Co. v. Hofstrom, 158 Okla. 27, 12 P.2d 519; Lee Way Stage Lines v. Simmons, 166 Okla. 203, 26 P.2d 905; Southwestern Cotton Oil Co. v. Spurlock, 166 Okla. 97, 26 P.2d 405; Ingram Drug Co. v. O'Brien, 164 Okla. 228, 23 P.2d 642. The law-making body of the state could easily anticipate the confusion that would necessarily arise in this connection, and in subsection 15 of section 13350, O. S. 1931, it is provided:

In the case at bar the business of the employer was the operation of a hotel. The hotel business, eo nomine, does not appear among the hazardous employments enumerated in section 13349, O. S. 1931. Respondent contends, however, that the facts bring the business within the statute and afford him the protection of the statute under the construction and application which has been given thereto by this court in the cases of Ft. Smith Aircraft Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 151 Okla. 67, 1 P.2d 682; Lee Way Stage Lines v. Simmons, 166 Okla. 203, 26 P.2d 905; Harbour-Longmire-Pace Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 147 Okla. 207, 296 P. 456; Deep Rock Oil Corp. v. Moore, 179 Okla. 488, 66 P.2d 910. The cited cases support the rule that where an employer maintains a workshop as defined by section 13350, O. S. 1931, an employee in such workshop, when injured in the performance of duties connected with or incident to such employment, is within the protection of the Workmen's Compensation Law, whether the work being done is on the immediate premises or not. Further than this the cited cases do not go. The statutory definition of a workshop is contained in subdivision 11, of section 13350, O. S. 1931, and reads as follows: " 'Workshop' means any premises, yard, plant, room or place wherein power-driven machinery is employed and manual or mechanical labor is exercised by way of trade for gain or otherwise or incidental to the process of making, altering, repairing, printing or ornamenting, cleaning, finishing, or adopting for sale or otherwise, an

We are of the opinion, and hold, that the fact that there was an electric dish washing machine in the kitchen of the hospital did not constitute it, under the law, a workshop where machinery was used. Petitioner relies upon Sunshine Food Stores v. Moorehead, 153 Okla. 301, 5 P.2d 1066. This case, together with other cases, such as Harbour-Longmire-Pace v. State Industrial Com., 147 Okla. 207, 296 P. 456, affirmed an award on the basis that there was competent evidence to support a finding of the State Industrial Commission that the place in which the claimant was injured was a workshop where machinery is used. Lee Way Stage Lines Coach Co. v. Simmons, 166 Okla. 203, 26 P.2d 905, is clearly distinguishable, and there is no doubt that the court was warranted in approving the findings that the promises in that case were within the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Law. These cases all involve the definition of a workshop where machinery is used, in the operation of which the proprietor was engaged in a trade or business for gain, and it was the holding of this court that there was competent evidence to sustain the award of the State Industrial Commission. In the case at bar there is no such finding.

This state of facts brings employee within the purview of the Compensation Act, although he was not using the implements operated by power at time of injury, since in the regular routine he operated the washing machine, which was power driven. Sunshine Food Stores et al. v. Moorehead et al., 153 Okla. 301, 5 P.2d 1066; Lee Way Stage Lines et al. v. Simmons et al., 166 Okla. 203, 26 P.2d 905. The case should be affirmed.