ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES Vs. MUTHUMEENATCHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment of Basheer ahmed Sayeed, J. , in Appeal against Order Nos. 239 and 338 of 1957. The appellant before us, in both these appeals, is the Assistant Director of Fisheries, tuticorin. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of these appeals are briefly the following. The Gulf of Mannar in the extreme south-east corner of Peninsular india has been famous for its pearl, and chank fisheries from time immemorial. The Government of Madras claim these chanks as their property and therefore no private fishing for chanks is allowed. There is a special season for the chank fishery. The services of divers are utilised for the purpose by the Fisheries department of the Government in the following manner. They are required to take a licence (free of any charge), and the licence contains these conditions:

(2.) IN the course of the diving season in the year 1955, two divers, by name, ibrahim Sahib and Arulanandam, lost their lives. Apparently they became overpowered by suffocation on account of staying too long under the water, and though they came out of water alive, they died sometime afterwards, in spite of the best medical treatment. The widows of those two divers applied before the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, for compensating them for the death of the above said divers. The Commissioner found that these two divers died due to an accident which arose out of and in the course of their employment. So this part of the case can be considered as beyond controversy. Further, the commissioner found that the divers were not employees of the State. In other words, they were not workmen as defined in Section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's compensation Act. Hence the applications of the widows for compensation were dismissed. Against the above orders, the widows of the divers appealed to Basheer ahmed Sayeed, J. Differing from the conclusion of the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, the learned Judge held that the terms of the employment of the divers in question attracted the provisions of the Workmen's compensation Act, and that therefore, the widows were entitled to compensation which was fixed at Rs. 3500/- each. Apparently the State Government had paid some amount as ex gratia payment to these widows. That amount was directed to be included in the sum of Rs. 3500/ -. The State Government of Madras, represented by the Fisheries department, has now appealed against the above decision of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.

(3.) SECTION 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act VIII of 1923) reads,