NARAPPA NAIDU Vs. VENKATAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act), a substantial question of law is urged.

(2.) According to the appellant, the petitioner's husband Anjanappa who met with an accident at about 3 p.m. on 10 February, 1958 was not a "workman" as defined in S. 2(1)(n) of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that on 10 February, 1958 at 3 p.m. while her husband Anjanappa was engaged in his work in the kiln of the appellant, he met with an accident which resulted in his death. It is said that while he was removing earth for making bricks a portion of the earth heaped came down on him and he was crushed to death. These allegations have been accepted by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation as correct. That finding is binding on us. But the question is whether on the facts found by the Commissioner we can conclude that the deceased Anjanappa can be held to be a "workman" as defined in the Act. Section 2(1)(n) of the Act defines a "workman" as follows : "'Workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a causal nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is - (i) a railway servant as defined S. 3 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, not permanently employed in any administrative district subdivisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as in specified in Sch. II. or (ii) employed on monthly wages not exceeding four hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Sch. II,

(3.) 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 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."