EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL Vs. SUBASINI PATTNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an employer's appeal under Section 32 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) CLAIMING the deceased employee to be a workman, his dependants filed an application under the Act for compensation. Contesting the same the employer disputed that the deceased being a storekeeper at the time of his death was performing the duties which are purely clerical in nature and as such was not a workman.

(3.) MR . G. Rath, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that Store -keeper would not be a workman since in Schedule -II, persons employed to discharge the job of clerical nature, are excepted.