LAWS(CHH)-2014-11-40

RAMMKIRTAN SAHU Vs. KULDEEPAK KESHARWANI AND ORS.

Decided On November 27, 2014
Rammkirtan Sahu Appellant
V/S
Kuldeepak Kesharwani And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the order dated 14.06.2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's /Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 23/WCA/COC-1-B/02 (N.F) claim. By way of the said impugned the learned Commissioner has rejected the claim of the claimant holding it to be not maintainable.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of the appeal is that the appellant/claimant had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Bilaspur claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. According to the claimant, he was engaged by the respondents for construction of their house and in the course of the construction, the appellant/claimant on 03.02.2001 met with an accident on account of which he received injuries on his body. In the course of treatment, left hand of the appellant had to be amputated and that the appellant also received injuries on his right leg for which also surgery was required. Based upon the said accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant, he sought for compensation from the respondents. According to the claimant, since he was engaged by the respondents for the construction of their house, for all practical purposes the respondents were his employer and therefore the claim application was filed against the respondents for payment of compensation as per the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(3.) Upon receipt of notice, the respondents entered appearance before the Court below and initially raised a preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the case itself. According to the counsel for the respondents, the claimant does not fall within the definition of workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act in as much as admittedly the claimant was working as a labour engaged by the respondents for the construction of the house jointly belonging to the respondents.