VARADARAJULU NAIDU Vs. MASAYA BOYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against the judgment of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming a compensation of Rs. 2106 on the following allegations, namely, that he was a workman employed by one V. Ramaswami Naidu, a contractor, in the month of November 1946, and that he received a personal Injury by accident, arising out of, and in the course of, his employment. The cause of the injury was the capsizing of the lorry belonging to the contractor and driven by his driver when the said lorry was conveying the respondent and his fellow workmen to the workspot. The injury sustained by the respondent was the breaking of his left arm, which resulted eventually in the loss of his left arm. The said Ramaswami Naidu, the employer, died soon after the filing of the application, and the reply statement was filed by his three sons as his legal representatives. They denied that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of that term as defined in the Act, and further denied that the injury was sustained in the course of his employment under their father. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation made an enquiry and passed an order directing the legal representatives of the employer to pay the respondent compensation in a sum of Rs. 2016. Against this order they filed an appeal to this Court under Section 30 of the Act. That appeal was dismissed by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. and this appeal under the Letters Patent is against his judgment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants, the legal representatives of the employer, pressed before us the two main pleas mentioned above. His first contention was that the respondent was not a workman. In so far as it is material for this appeal, the definition of "workman" in Section 2 (1)(n) of the Act is as follows:

(3.) The following facts appear to be beyond dispute. The appellant's father was a contractor for the formation of a road. The respondent was employed as a cooly maistri under him on Rs. 2-8-0 per day. The respondent brought four coolies with him, and along with them was engaged in breaking stones. The respondent was being paid a lump sum of money every fortnight. He was a regular and continuous worker and not a casual labourer. On these facts, the Commissioner was right in holding that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of the Act. Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. was also of the same view.