REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SITHARAMA REDDIAR T N Appellant

V/S

AYYASAMI GOUNDER A Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HARRIS V. AMORY [REFERRED TO]
SMITH V. ANDERSON [REFERRED TO]
WALKER V. CRYSTAL PALACE FOOTBALL CLUB,LTD. [REFERRED TO]
BARGWELL V. DANIEL [REFERRED TO]
HILL V. BEGG [REFERRED TO]
DEWHURST V. MATHER [REFERRED TO]
MANTON V. CANTWELL [REFERRED TO]
FARLEIGH V. PARKER AND LANG [REFERRED TO]
C.A. AND MILES V. DAWE [REFERRED TO]
HUGHES V. WALKER [REFERRED TO]
SKATES V. JONES AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE V. KORECAN SYNDICATE [REFERRED TO]
STOKER V. WORTHAM [REFERRED TO]
KNIGHT V. BUCKNILL [REFERRED TO]
ARUMUGHAM V NAGAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HUSSAIN V. SECRETARY OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
K.A.K. MASTER V. RAMDHARI [REFERRED TO]
POPATLAL V. BAI LAKHU [REFERRED TO]
EBRAHIM HAJI JUSAB V. JAINIBI AMUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
THAVAR BROS: V. MUTTA [REFERRED TO]
PERLYAKHAL V. AGENT,SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY CO.LTD. TRICHINOPOLY [REFERRED TO]
BACHIA MISTRI VS. SHANTI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the order made by the Court of Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W. C. C. No. 147 of 1950.

(2.) THE facts are:--The appellant Sitharama Reddiar is a petty ryot of North Arcot district owning 4 acres of dry lands. There was a small well in his field. On account of the failure of monsoon for four years in succession, the well had got dried up. Therefore, he deepened it with a band of diggers of whom the respondent Ayyasami Gounder was one. The digging operations started in February 1948. The appellant or his father supervised the work. They paid the diggers advance at 12 annas plus 13/4 measures of rice every day and supplied them with gunpowder for dynamiting the rocks. On 26 March 1949 when dynamite was used for digging operations it resulted in explosion. The respondent was injured. He was taken to the hospital and his right arm was amputated up to his elbow and he lost three fingers in his left hand. Thereupon this respondent preferred an application before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation which was summarily rejected on the ground that the respondent was not a workman as defined in Section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. There was an appeal to the High Court and Mack, J. , in A. A. O. No. 642 of 1950 set aside the order and remanded it for fresh disposal according to law.

(3.) THE learned Commissioner who heard this remanded application came to the conclusion that the respondent was a workman as defined in Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act and awarded him the specified compensation of rupees 1,077-4-10. The defeated employer appeals.

Click here to view full judgment.

SITHARAMA REDDIAR T N Vs. AYYASAMI GOUNDER A

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address