REBATI GANTAYAT Vs. HAGURU SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against an order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Balasore under Section 3 of the Act refusing to grant compensation to the present appellant.

(2.) THE appellant filed an application before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Balasore alleging that her husband late Gangadhar Gantaya was a Workman under the respondent Haguru Sethi who had a business establishment dealing with tamarind and rice etc Her case is that her husband was earning a monthly -wage of Rs. 120/ - and during the course of employment he died of an accident. He was employed by his employer for plucking tamarind and while doing so, a branch of the tamarind tree broke down as a consequence of which he had a severe fall sustaining various injuries. He was then taken to the Hospital where he died. The case of the respondent is that Gangadhar Gantayat was a casual labourer and on the date of accident he was working on share basis along with Brother person and be died in the alleged accident due to fall from the tamarind tree from which he was plucking tamarind. The respondent further alleged that though on humanitarian grounds he had some money for his Svdhi ceremony there is no legal obligation on his part to pay any compensation for his death. According to him, Gangadhar Gantayat was not workman as per the provisions of Section 2(1)(n) read with Schedule II of the Act and as such the present appellant is not entitled to compensation as right. The next contention of the respondent is that notice of claim as required under Section 10 having not been served the proceeding under Section 3 of the Act is not maintainable.

(3.) THE appellant assails all these findings in this appeal.