CONTRACTOR KATTUPUCHI ARUMUGHAM Vs. NAGAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, awarding Nagammal, the widow of a cooly, Venkataswami Naicker and his three minor children Rs. 810 as compensation. Venkataswami was employed along with some other coolies to unload a wagon of dehydrated potatoes at Avadi station. While carrying a box on his head it is said to have slipped on to his stomach and caused him an abdominal injury. This was on 4th September, 1946. He was removed to his village in the first instance and brought to hospital on 7th September, 1946, where he died on 14th September, 1946.

(2.) AN appeal lies only if a substantial point of law is involved in the Commissioner's order. The learned Counsel for the appellant, who is a contractor by the name of Arumugham, fully realises this. He urges that the Commissioner on the evidence and on the facts wrongly found that Venkataswami was a workman within the scope of Section 2 (n) of the Act. This section defines a "workman" as:

(3.) COMING then to the contract of employment contemplated by the definition, there is nothing in the language which imports into the contract of service powers of dismissal or powers of direct superintendence or control. It can scarcely be argued that the employment of this cooly by Somu was not a contract of service. He was clearly engaged for a specified remuneration to help in the unloading of a wagon of goods. I am unable to see any ground on which this cooly Venkataswami, can be excluded from the definition of a workman in the Act. In Nadirsha Hormusji v. Krishnabai, I.L.R. (1936) 60 Bom. 701 Beaumont, C.J., in considering the definition of casual nature of employment took the view that the rule adopted in England was that it was. impossible to define exactly what casual employment was. He observed that there are some cases in which employment is not obviously casual and other cases, in which employment is obviously casual and that there were a number of debatable cases between these two extremes on which a finding of the Commissioner must be treated as a finding of fact and not subject to any appeal. In this particular case there is the evidence of another cooly examined as P. W. 3 to the effect that he and Venkataswami were working together at Nafi godowns for the past eight months under the appellant Arumugham and that Arumugham used to be himself at the work spot and that Somu Maistry used to supervise the work of the coolies. This evidence has not been specifically contradicted either by Somu Maistry himself or by Arumugham both of whom have been examined. There is therefore plenty of evidence to support the Commissioner's finding of fact that Venkataswami was a workman within the required legal definition. It would appear that he was not even merely a casual cooly employed that day only to assist in unloading but that he was fairly regularly employed in unloading wagons by this contractor Arumugham. I can find nothing illegal in the order of the Commissioner. The appeal is dismissed with costs.