GHANSU DONGRE Vs. GULAB RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been admitted on the following substantial question of law vide order dated 25.7.2013 :-

(2.) Learned Commissioner has held that deceased Gajendra was employed with the appellant Ghansu Dongre, who is running a decoration service for lighting in the marriage ceremonies etc. It is pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was receiving salary @ Rs.1,500 per month.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner has failed to consider the question whether the deceased was in regular employment of the appellant. Further, he is not justified in believing the pleadings of claimants without any proof of employment of deceased with the appellant. Only after considering the evidence that the deceased was involved in carrying the generator and lights in the marriage procession, he has been held as workman. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards definition of "employer" as defined in Section 2(1)(e), the definition of "workman". Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn attention towards the provisions of Section 3(2) which requires continuous period of not less than 6 months in employment. The provisions of Section 3(2) referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant are reproduced below :-