KERALA BALAGRAM Vs. KOCHUMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Opposite Party/Employer in a Workmen Compensation case has approached this Court with this Appeal challenging the order awarding compensation to the Workman respondent herein. The former contends that the latter was not a workman in so far as he was not engaged in the trade or business of the former to fall under the definition of the term in S.2(1)(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and in so far as he was employed in a casual nature. It is also contended that the Tribunal had cast a burden to prove the negative fact on the appellant. The three questions of law on which the respondent is put on notice in this appeal relate to the above three aspects.

(2.) Certain facts are admitted. Agriculture is one among the operations conducted by the appellant society apart from managing orphanage, schools, vocational training centres, dairy farming, tailoring institute, printing institute etc. In connection with the agricultural operations of the appellant the paddy harvested had to be sifted on 11.5.1993 and for that purpose a sifting machine was arranged and the sifting was conducted on 11.5.1993. There occurred an accident on the said day during the course of the sifting and a result of it the left hand of the respondent got crushed in the machine and he sustained severe injuries resulting in amputation of two fingers. The respondent had been taken to the hospital and an amount of Rs. 1,000/- had been paid to the respondent towards hospital expenses. The respondent claimed compensation, and the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation awarded an amount of Rs. 36,028/- to the respondent. It is based on these admitted facts the questions of law raised in this appeal have to be answered.

(3.) The appellant contends that the agricultural work of a registered charitable society solely for the purpose of feeding orphans will not come within the purview of the words trade or business in S.2(l)(n) of the Act. The main part of S.2(l)(n) reads as follows: