ALEX V CHACKO Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant in this case questions Award of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation in W.C.C.No. 3 of 2001. The husband of the second respondent died during the course of employment. Appellant is a construction contractor. Deceased was working as a helper of the appellant and he fell down from the second floor of the building and succumbed to injuries on the next day. Dependants claimed compensation claiming that deceased was aged 35 years and was in receipt of Rs. 1,500 as wages per month. Commissioner fixed income at Rs. 2,000 and awarded compensation. The contention of the appellants are three. First of all deceased was not a workman entitled to compensation under Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as Act). Secondly it was contended that even if he is a workman, he claimed monthly income as Rs.1,500 and fixing it as Rs.2,000 is illegal. Thirdly it is contended that there was undue delay in filing application and some amount was paid at the time of accident and hence direction to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident is illegal.

(2.) With regard to the first contention, according to the appellant itself, claimant was employed by his Supervisor on that date for his own construction business. He was engaged for the purpose of appellants trade or business and he was paid by the appellant. Therefore his employment is accepted and it cannot be contended that he was not a workman. To be a workman as defined under S.2(n) of the Act, one need not be a permanent workman and contract of employment can be express or implied, oral or in writing. Deceased was employed in the construction business and his employment was specified in Serial No. (VIII) of Schedule II of the Act. Even casual workmen employed for the purpose of trade or business is a workman (See Kochappan v. Krishnan, 1987 KLJ 310 ). From the evidence it is found by the Commissioner that workman met with the accident during the course of employment and it was raising out of employment.

(3.) With regard to income, appellant himself deposed before the Court that his daily wage was Rs.100 and he was employed only for one day. Even if it is so, monthly wages has to be calculated as per S.5 of the Act. When statute prescribes a particular method for calculating monthly wages Commissioner or Court cannot deviate from the same. S.5(b) and (c) are as follows: