DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. NAYANGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Parties.

(2.) TWO points are sought to be urged in the appeal. Firstly that the workman was a casual employee and hence would not be entitled to the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and secondly that the employee was not on duty as falsely alleged by him and that he did not suffer any injury while performing duties.

(3.) TO appreciate the arguments advance at the hearing today to challenge the impugned order dated July 26, 2005 passed by the commissioner Workmen's Compensation a peep has to be made into the impugned order.