BADRI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23-12-2004 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation;'Labour Court, Ratlam in W.C.N.F. Case No. 1/2003 whereby claim case filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sustained in a motor-accident which took place on 10-5-2001 was dismissed, present appeal has-been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim case for compensation before the learned Court below alleging that on 10-5-2001 appellant was hired for construction of well by respondents No. 2 and 3 as labourer @ Rs.70/- per day. It was alleged that Lalu/father-in-law of the appellant was also hired as labourer. It was alleged that on 10-5-2001 since the father-in-law of the appellant did not turn-up on his job on account of sickness, therefore, appellant was engaged by respondents No. 2 and 3 as labourer. It was alleged that when the appellant was working at that time appellant fell down in the well which was having a depth of 32 feets with the result appellant sustained grievous injuries. Appellant was brought to Ratlam Hospital where appellant was treated. It was prayed that claim case be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim case was contested by the respondents wherein it was denied that services of the appellant were hired. It was denied that wages were settled as Rs.70/- per day. It was alleged that since the appellant was not engaged by the respondents No. 2 and 3, therefore, claim case be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Court below found that services of the appellant were taken as casual labour which is not covered under the definition of worker under section 2(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act"), therefore, appellant is not entitled for any amount of compensation and dismissed the claim case against which the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that learned Court below committed error in holding that since the appellant was engaged as casual labour, therefore, appellant is not covered under the definition of "worker" under section 2(n) of the Act. It is submitted that since the appellant sustained injuries in the said accident when the appellant was working in the employment of respondents No. 2 and 3, therefore, appeal be allowed, order passed by learned Court below be set-aside and adequate compensation be awarded.