GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. SUKUMAR INDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner which he passed on December 15, 1971. The respondent was employed in the Office of the Divisional Engineering Construction, Eastern Railway at Lilooah. On June 3, 1968 he came to the Chowringhee Railway Accounts Office for the purpose of getting pay bill of Railway employees passed. While he was returning from Chowringhee Office to the Office at Lilooah he met with an accident and suffered injuries. The Commissioner has awarded compensation for Rs.6,300/- (Rupees Six thousand and three hundred) on the basis of 50 per cent loss of eating capacity and corresponding costs and hearing fee.

(2.) The question which the Railway authorities has raised for our consideration relates to the construction of S.2(1) (n) (i) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Let us quote the relevant provisions of the Statute. These are: 2(n) 'Workman' means any person . . . . who is - (i) a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, not permanently employed in any administrative, district of sub divisional office of railway . . . Section 3(7) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 gives the definition of a 'Railway Servant'. A. 'Railway Servant' means any person employed by a railway administration in connection with the service of a railway.

(3.) Reading S. 3(7) of the Indian Railway Act, 1890 with the provisions of S. 2(1) (n)(i) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 quoted above, the position appears to be that any person who is employed by a railway administration but nor permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway is a ?workman?.