NAGAR PALIKA Vs. ROSHAN ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 27.10.1999 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court, Mandsaur) in Claim Case No. 2/WC/90 whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent was allowed and a sum of Rs. 14728.80 was awarded as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, present appeal has been filed which was admitted for filial hearing by this Court on 26.7.2006 on the following questions of law: (i) Whether the respondent is covered by the definition of workman as provided under Section 2(i)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? (ii) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation was within his jurisdiction to award compensation for injury not covered under Schedule II and levy penalty?

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent filed a claim petition before the learned Court below alleging that the respondent was in the employment of the appellant and was getting salary of Rs. 1170/ - per month. On 5.9.1989, at about 4.00 p.m. when the respondent was working as masson under the employment of appellant, in Municipal Colony, Mandsaur, at that time, the respondent fell down with the result the respondent sustained fracture in his left hand resulting with permanent disability has occurred to the, respondent, therefore, the respondent is entitled for compensation under the Provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. Claim Petition was opposed by the appellant. It was alleged that no injury has been sustained by the respondent at the time when he was working with the appellant. It was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the date of the accident is 5.9.1989 at that time, definition of 'workman' was as under: 'Workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business).