T. VINAYAKA MUDALIAR Vs. MINDALA POTTIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act raises for determination an interesting point which does not appear to have been specifically decided in any reported case. The appellant is one Vinayaka Mudaliar who claims to be by vocation a printer. He engaged one Munuswami a cooly, as a mason along with another Munuswami P. W. 2 to construct a house without engaging the services of any contractor. The former Munuswami died on 18 -12 -1948 as a result of being engulfed in earth. His widowed mother filed an application, it would appear, on 11 -4 -1950 for compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner awarded her Rs. 2400 under Schedule IV negativing the contention of the employer that the deceased was not at the time of the accident a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to P. W. 2 he and the deceased Munuswami were each paid Rs. 3 a day by the appellant who used to build houses and let them on rent. They had constructed or were constructing three houses for him. This has not been specifically denied in the witness -box by Vinayaka Mudaliar, who took the position that the deceased Munuswami was employed by the maistry who was supervising the work and was paid by him.

(3.) THIS is not a ease coming within the scope of Section 12, there being no principal and no one under any contractual relationship with the principal who actually employed the workman. The point arising for determination must be answered with reference to the definition of workman in Section 2(1)(n) of the Act. In the present case the deceased workman's employment was admittedly not of a casual nature. The point is whether he was employed for the purpose of Vinayaka Mudaliar's "trade or business". The evidence shows that Vinayaka Mudaliar had built three houses by directly employing masons without resort to a contractor. If he had engaged a contractor he would quite clearly not be liable as a principal under Section 12 of the Act. Not having engaged any contractor and himself having engaged workmen directly to build the houses in which presumably he had invested capital with a view to obtaining profit and gain to himself, it is extremely difficult to hold that he did not employ this workman for the purposes of his business. It is urged that his main business was printing. I do not think that liability to compensate a workman can be avoided by an employer having several businesses, say of printing, house construction and also manufacture other than printing. The position may be quite different if a person in the construction of a house for his own residence directly employs workmen. In such a case it would not be possible to hold that the workman was employed for the purposes of the employer's "business". But when a person employs a workman to build a number of houses, as in the present case, without the service of any contractor, he must be deemed to have employed him for the purpose of his business. There is such a thing as a subsidiary business as apart from a main business. Otherwise if a different view were to be taken it would mean that the liability to compensate a bona fide workman as defined in Section 2(l)(n) of the Act can be defeated by employers on the pretext that they have more than one business. I think the Commissioner has rightly held that the deceased Munuswami was a workman under Section 2(1)(n) whose widowed mother was entitled to compensation under the Act.