KAMLABAI Vs. SOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') by original applicant/appellant herein, against the original non-applicant-employer/respondent herein, and thereby challenged the judgment and bill of cost dated 22. 9. 1986 passed by Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, Chandrapur, in w. C. Case No. 14 (11) of 1981, whereby, the application was dismissed. The Commissioner after considering the material as well as evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that at the relevant time Bindadin, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of original applicant No. 2, was not workman of the employer, one Sohanlal amriksingh Arora, respondent herein. It was also declared that original applicant no. 3 was not dependant of said Bindadin. As he was not in the employment and in the accident which took place on 15. 4. 1979 by the use of truck No. CPC 8260 owned by the respondent, 4 persons including bindadin died. Therefore, the appellants legal representatives of the said Bindadin, were not entitled for such application and relief under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) THE Workmen's Compensation Act defines 'workman' under section 2 (1) (n), at the relevant time as under:

(3.) WE have gone through the evidence led by the parties and after going through the same, I also find that the appellant failed to prove the basic contention of existence of relationship of employer and employee, to claim compensation under the Act, in question. The finding given by the learned Commissioner based on material on record as well as the evidence led by the parties, I am reluctantly declined to interfere with the order passed by the commissioner. This is a very unfortunate case that in spite of the death of the said bindadin, the court is unable to award any compensation under the provisions of the act. There is nothing to show whether such application or any such applications had been filed under any other provisions. Even after detailed scrutiny of the evidence, the counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to trace out any evidence to support his case of existence of relationship of employer and employee, as referred above. The facts itself show that on 15. 4. 1979, the truck No. CPC 8260 met with accident near Lohara village and the four persons including Bindadin died in the accident. The truck was carrying and/or transporting coal. The respondent was the owner of the said truck. Bindadin was never in the employment of the respondent. There was no material and documents placed on record and/or even suggestion to the effect that he was in actual employment of the respondent. The application itself suggests that the said Bindadin was piece rate workman and used to work on daily basis to load and unload the said coal truck. The respondent owner never used to employ Bindadin, as daily rate or casual worker for the said work. The driver of the respondent one shantish alias Satu, s/o Shamrao Cristain, used to get the gang of workers to load and unload the particular truck. The said gang or team used to get Rs. 40 to Rs. 50. However, evidence was led by Kamlabai to the effect that the wages of Bindadin was rs. 175 to Rs. 200 per week, by loading and unloading such truck. As observed above, the learned Judge found that there was no satisfactory evidence and material on the record to hold that at the relevant time Bindadin was in the employment of the respondent or its driver Satu. There was no direct connection and/or relationship between the said deceased Bindadin and the respondent. The said Bindadin, as record and evidence shows was entrusted the work of labourer or a coolie for loading and unloading of the charcoal, at the fixed amount, as per trip. The said Satu, driver, used to disburse money at the respective rate, for per trip, to the gang of labourers. The said driver Satu used to engage such labourers from time to time without the knowledge of the respondent. The said driver's duty was to load and unload the charcoal from one place to another. There is no material on record to show that said satu used to engage Bindadin regularly on every trip and at all times.