GUNDA Vs. WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also gave Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 248 and 250, both of 1961.

(2.) THE circumstances in which these three petitions under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been filed are that the Petitioners engaged One Gulabsingh and Shivcharan for digging a well on their land on a contract basis. These contractors employed four other persons for the digging operations. One of them was Raghubira. During the digging operations, dynamite was used for blasting the rocks. On 2nd March 1960 there was an explosion in the dynamitting operations as a result of which Gulabsingh, Raghubira ana Shivcharan sustained severe injuries. Gulabsingh and Raghubira succumbed to the injuries. Shivcharan survived. The widows of the deceased persons and Shivcharan then filed applications before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for payment of compensation to them under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner found that the Petitioners had employed Gulabsingh, Raghubira and Shivcharan for the digging operations that these three persons were 'workmen' within the definition given in Section 2(1)(n) of the Act; and that the injuries which Gulabsingh, Raghubira and Shivcharan sustained, were caused to them by an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. Accordingly, the Commissioner directed the Petitioners to pay Rs. 3,000 as compensation to Puttibai, the widow of Gulabsingh, Rs. 3,000 to Bakhtia, the widow of Raghubira and Rs. 2,100 to Shivcharan.

(3.) BEFORE us, Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, did not dispute that the three workmen were employed by the Petitioners for digging a well, and that the dynamite explosion, which caused injuries to them, was an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. He, however, contended that though these workmen were employed by the Petitioners, none of them was a 'workman' as defined by Clause (n) of Section 2(1) of the Act. It was said that their employment was of a casual nature but they were not employed by the Petitioners for the purpose of any trade or business of theirs, and that the finding of the Commissioner that the workmen were employed for the purpose of the Petitioners' business as agriculturists was erroneous.