GORELAL S/O MUNNALAL Vs. DROPADIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an employer's appeal against an award of compensation to the heirs of the deceased workman Gangaram under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The principal defence to the action were (i) that the deceased was not a workman within1 the definition of the term as given in Section 2 (i) (n) of the Workmen's compensation Act hereinafter called 'the Act', his employment being of a casual nature, and (ii) that the accident in the course of which he lost his life had not taken place in the course and arising out of his employment issue No. (1) was found against the appellant by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act and on a finding that the deceased had been employed on daily wages of Rs. 5/-, the respondents were awarded Rs. 3,500/- as compensation.

(2.) THE facts were that the appellant was constructing his own house and had employed artisans and labourers for that purpose. Deceased Gangaram was one of them. It is admitted by the appellant that the deceased had worked on Rs. 5/- per day for the construction work in the third storey, he fell-down from there and died within 2 or 3 hours due to this fall.

(3.) NOW in order to appreciate the contention of the appellant whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the term as defined in section 2 (1) (n) of the Act it will be necessary to examine the definition and its applicability to the admitted circumstances of the case as detailed above. Section 2 (1) (n)defines workman. Section 2 (1) (n) :-