BABULAL Vs. JAGTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.8.1998 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 613 of 1996 by a learned single Judge of this court, whereby the appeal preferred by him under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act had been dismissed, has preferred this appeal. According to the appellant, he was working as a labourer for digging a well in agriculture field of the respondents on 12.5.1987 at the rate of Rs. 10 per day as wages. According to him, while he was working in the well, it subsided and he got entrapped after fall inside the well. He suffered number of injuries and became permanently disabled having lost movability of his legs and had to suffer amputation of toe of one of the legs. He filed application claiming compensation under section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) Respondents contested the claim of the appellant and denied that the appellant was engaged as a labourer on the alleged date of incident and further denied that he ever fell in the well. Their stand was that the appellant had climbed up on some mango tree and fell down from it and suffered injuries and out of animosity, had made out a false claim against the respondents. Their further plea was that because of fall from the tree, appellant became paralysed and, therefore, lost capacity of his legs. The Commissioner under the Act, on consideration of the material on record, held that the appellant could not establish that he was a workman working under the respondents to dig well nor it was trade or business of the respondents to carry out such work of digging of well and accordingly, it dismissed the application filed for grant of compensation.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred appeal before this court under section 30 of the Act. This court on consideration of the material held that appellant was engaged by respondent No. 2 to dig the well and the wages agreed was at the rate of Rs. 10 per day. However, the learned single Judge held that appellant was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (1) (n) of the Act and accordingly dismissed the appeal. He was of the opinion that there is no entry about employment of digging or repairing of wells in Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act and as such, he shall not be entitled to the relief claimed.