In Los Angeles Co. v. Indus. Acc. Com. (Jones ) (1934) 2 Cal.App.2d 614, a welfare recipient was injured on or about November 24, 1933, during the course of duties assigned to him. Annulling the Commission's award of benefits, the court noted that the injured was not an employee under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1917, as he was required to perform work as a condition of relief. The court also observed that the injured was not an employee as "the case comes squarely within" the 1933 amendments to section 8(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act which excluded "from the definition of employee those who 'perform services in return for aid or sustenance only.'" ( Los Angeles Co., supra , 2 Cal.App.2d at p. 615.) The court also stated that the 1933 addition of section 12 1/2 to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1917 "does not bring within the definition of 'employee' one who is performing services as in this case. The words 'where an employee is injured while engaged on any unemployment work relief program' cannot be construed as meaning 'where one is engaged on any unemployment relief program he becomes thereby an employee within the meaning of this act, notwithstanding the provisions of section 8a thereof.' If the legislature intended to enact in substance a section having the meaning which respondent commission seeks to attribute to it, it has failed in its purpose, and the omission will have to be supplied, if at all, by further enactment rather than by a construction not warranted by the language used." (Ibid. )