MARID HAJEE MOHAMMED ISMAIL Vs. CHINNATHAYI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,800 to the respondent Chinnathayi Ammal, the widow of Andi Munuswami, who met with his death by falling into a lime pit in the appellant's tannery on 17 September 1958. The accident was reported by the appellant to the sub-inspector of police and also to the Inspector of Factories to whom he appears to have stated that the deceased fell into the pit on account of fits. This statement was repeated before the Commissioner when the question of compensation was being considered by him, but on the evidence let in before him, the Commissioner held that the deceased died as a result of his falling into the lime pit and not because of his fall due to fits and I am in complete agreement with this conclusion.

(2.) SO far as the compensation awarded is concerned, two objections are urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant ;

(3.) AS regards the first objection, it seems to me that so far as I am concerned, the matter is concluded by the Bench decision of this Court in Periyakkal v. Agent, South Indian Railway Company, Ltd. I. L. R. 58 Mad. 804. In that case it has been held that a person to be excluded from the definition of " workman " in S. 2, Clause (n), of the Act, must not only be one "whose employment is of a casual nature " but also one " who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade and business. " Admittedly, the present case is one where the deceased had been employed for the employer's trade and, therefore, the fact that he was merely a casual worker would not exclude him from the definition of workman entitled to relief under Section 5. The first objection has, therefore, to fall.