KISHORCHAND BHAI Vs. DAMODAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against an order passed by Deo J. in Miscellaneous, First Appeal No. 160 of 1951 on 9 -3 -1953. The matter arises out of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the present appellant (cow deceased and represented by his heirs) was the employer against whom the orders of the learned Commissioner and that of the learned Single Judge have been made.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows : The respondent Damodar was working as the head mason in the construction of a godown which the employer was getting constructed to store grain in which he was doing business. Damodar was working as a mason and used to dress stone flew up and got embedded in his eye, which though treated, resulted in the loss of the sight of that eye. Compensation was claimed on two accounts, viz, for permanent loss of the limb and for the expenses of treatment. A lump sum has been awarded by the learned Commissioner, and that amount is not in dispute any longer.

(3.) THE appeal of the employer is directed only against the finding that Damodar falls within the definition of "workmen" given in the Workmen's Compensation Act. According to the employer, both the learned Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge have erred in holding that Damodar can be described as a "workman" within the Workmen's Compensation Act. The definition is contained in section 2 (1) (n) of the Act. It reads as follows: - -