KOCHU VELU Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interesting questions are raised in this appeal which is at the instance of a person who claimed the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act, but who was denied the benefit under the Act by the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under appeal. The appellant was one engaged in the avocation of climbing coconut trees to pluck the nuts. The opposite party who is the first respondent in the appeal owns a small coconut garden and the applicant who is the appellant here was engaged by the opposite party for climbing the coconut trees from time to time to crop the nuts from the trees periodically. On 16-6-1972 while the applicant was at his work of climbing coconut trees in the coconut garden belonging to the opposite party to pluck the nuts he fell down resulting in fracture of the left hand. He is said to have been hospitalised. Later he underwent Ayurvedic treatment. The applicant is said to have become a permanent invalid as a result of the accident. hp claimed compensation of Rs. 5000/-from the opposite party on account of the accident. That the applicant fell down from the tress while engaged in climbing it is not disputed. That the tree from which the applicant fell down belonged to the opposite party and the applicant was engaged by the opposite party was also not in dispute. But according to the opposite party, even so the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be invoked by the applicant as he would not be a workman within the meaning of the term in the said Act. The first respondent is said to own only about 100 coconut trees and the work of climbing these trees would take only about 6 and 7 hours once in about 50 days. The first respondent had no trade or business in coconuts and therefore, according to him, the applicant could not be said to have fallen from the tree while he was engaged in the work which was part of the trade or business of the respondent. It is further said that by its very nature the work undertaken by the applicant was of a casual nature and for that reason too he would not be a workman within the meaning of the Act.

(2.) The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner seems to think that if a person meets with an accident while working for another but not in connection with any trade or business of the other he would not be a workman within the meaning of the Act and the Act would not apply to him. On such premises the application has been dismissed. The appeal is against that order.

(3.) The term 'workman' is defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in S.2(1)(n) and that definition reads thus: