B D GHODAKE Vs. MAHABOOB SAHEB FAKRUSAB DEVAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent in M.F.A. 3/66 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Dharwar has filed this appeal under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act) contending that the order passed by the Commissioner is not in accordance with law inasmuch as the claimant Mahaboob Sab was not a 'workman' within the meaning of the Act.

(2.) The few facts necessary are that on 3-2-1966 and 4-2-1966 the claimant Mahaboob Sab had been employed by one Maniyar, a maistry or supervisor in the factory in question at Hubli as a turner. On 4-2-1966 the pulley belt connected to the lathe had become loose and therefore Mahaboob Sab reported that fact to Maniyar. Basappa Ghodke, who was the owner of the factory, was present at that time. Basappa Ghodke and Maniyar told the claimant that he should proceed with the work as the work was urgent and at that the claimant told that it was not the job of a turner to tighten the belt and it was the work of a cobbler. The cobbler was not there. Basappa Ghodke and Maniyar told the claimant further that he should tighten the belt immediately and therefore he stood on a stool and tightened the belt. The engine was running at that time. While he was so tightening the belt and putting it on the pulley connecting to the lathe, the accident took place and he sustained injury to his hand.

(3.) Immediately after the accident, the Manager of the factory reported the accident as per Ex.4 to the Inspector of Factories. Later on the claimant instituted proceedings before the Commissioner claiming compensation.