PARAMESWARAN Vs. M K PARAMESWARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had filed on application under S.22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming an amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for amputation of three fingers of his left palm, as a result of injuries which he sustained in an accident on 13-9-1982 when he was working under the respondent. The accident occurred when he was removing veneers from the peeling machine.

(2.) It was the applicant's case that he was a workman under the respondent and that the accident resulting in injuries to him occurred during the course and out of employment and that the respondent was bound to compensate him for the injury. In his sworn statement, he had stated that he was working as a regular employee in a match factory owned by the respondent and that it was during the course of and out of the employment that the accident occurred, which resulted in injuries to him. The respondent employer filed a written statement contending that the employment of the applicant was purely casual, that he was engaged only when the regular employee working in the establishment was absent, that he was not employed in the peeling machine and that the accident occurred due to the fact that the applicant meddled with the machine without any knowledge of its working and contrary to the instructions of the management. He claimed that the industrial unit was started only on 6-9-1982. He therefore refuted the claim of the applicant that he was employed by the respondent for over nine months. It was also his case, that he had maintained wage registers under the Minimum Wages, Act, Rules and Notifications. It was his further case that the applicant was not entitled to any compensation, because he was not a workman as defined in S.2(n) of the Act and could not, therefore, sustain the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He submitted further that the accident did not arise out of employment or in the course of employment since the applicant transgressed the specific directions issued by him.

(3.) The appellant examined himself as A. W. 1, a coworker eyewitness as A. W. 3 and the doctor who made entries in the accident register A2 and issued Ext. Al disability certificate as A. W.2. The respondent examined himself and his manager as M. Ws. 1 and 2 and proved the muster roll and register of wages for his factory for the period from 6-9-1982 to 30-9-1983.