PATTAMMAL AND ORS. Vs. JANAKIRAMA KOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the widow and children of one Mannankatti, who is said to have died consequent upon his having sprayed a land with the insecticide folidol, which land is alleged to belong to the Respondent who it is alleged was the person who employed the deceased Mannankatti to spray folidol on his land against the decision of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, dismissing the petition filed by the Appellant under Sec. 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation in respect of the death of the aforesaid Mannankatti.

(2.) The first witness examined on the side of the Appellants clearly testified to the fact that the deceased was spraying folidol on the land of the Respondent. That is the only evidence available to show that the deceased was spraying folidol on the land of the Respondent. Soon after he had completed spraying he appears to have become unconscious and subsequently died apparently as a result of the ingestion of the poisonous particles emitted, while the insecticide was being sprayed. The Respondent denied that he employed the deceased for spraying his lands. But apart from his interested denial, there is no evidence to rebut the evidence furnished by P.W. 1, whose evidence there are no grounds to reject. Therefore, it may be taken as proved that the deceased Mannankatti died as a result of his having ingested poisonous particles of the insecticide when spraying the lands of the Respondent with the insecticide folidol. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, however dismissed the application for compensation filed by the Appellants on the ground that the work of spraying folidol in the agricultural land or the Respondent is not covered by the schedule of employments detailed in Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore the accident was not one covered by the Act.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Appellants has, however, pointed out that the work of spraying folidol in agricultural tends would come under item (xxix) mentioned in Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He has further argued that Schedule II is not an exhaustive list of the various employments in which a person should be employed if he were to claim the benefits of the workmen's Compensation Act, but is only illustrative of the kind of employments which would be covered by the definition of workmen contained in the Act and in support of his contention he has cited the decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in Shaik Jafarji Hiptullah Bhoy Gin and Press Factory, Amraoti v/s. Shaik Ismail : A.I.R. 1937 Nag. 311, where the learned Judge has observed that Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act does not limit the scope of the definition given in Sec. 2(1)(n) and that it merely illustrates it. With great respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to subscribe myself to that proposition. When the wording of Sec. 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act clearly shows that Schedule II specifies the nature of the employment in which the workman should be employed if he were to come under the definition of a workman who would be entitled to be covered by the Act. Sec. 2(b)(n) reads as follows: