DOMA ROUT Vs. SAMAL PRASAD CHANDUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') against the order of the Commissioner under the Act, rejecting the prayer of the Appellants who had claimed compensation for the death of Bihari Rout.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Appellants' case, the deceased Bihari Rout had been employed as a skilled labourer under Respondent No. 1 and had been engaged in the work of demolition of a portion of his shop room of Roopak Cloth House in Puri town. While he was thus engaged, he met with an accident and later he died in the hospital and thereafter the Appellants filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act claiming compensation. It was averred in the claim petition that the deceased was engaged on a daily wage of Rs. 8/ - and it was further mentioned that the deceased while being engaged to demolish a portion of the shop room of the Roopak Cloth House on 20.9.1975 met with an accident and died at 11.45 a.m. Respondent No. 1 contested before the Commissioner alleging that the deceased ' had never been employed by him and he was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act and therefore, no compensation can be awarded in his favour under the Act. Respond -dent No. 2 which was the Puri Municipality contended that the Municipality had never engaged the deceased for demolition of the shop of Respondent No. 1 and therefore, they are not liable.

(3.) MR . B.P. Ray, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, submits that the conclusion of the Commissioner on each of the points is erroneous in law and is contrary to the evidence on record and he further submits that the proposed amendment should have been allowed in the interest of justice.