(1.) THIS appeal Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 arises out of the order dated 20-12-83 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Dhubri in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 47 of 1978. The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India and the Depot in-charge of the Dhubri Godown of the Food Corporation of India are the appellants herein.
(2.) THE case in brief is that respondent No. 1, Shri Ramayan Sahani of Ward No. 13 of Dhubri town was employed by the contractor for the services of the Food Corporation of India, in short 'FCI', for loading food grains of FCI from truck No. ASG 707 of the railway wagons at Railway goods yard at Dhubri on 14-8-77. During the course of such employment Ramayan Sahani received grievous injury on his left thumb on the said date and thereafter he was taken to Dhubri Civil Hospital where he was admitted as an indoor patient upto 1-9-77. He had lost the left thumb due to the injury as a result of which, as he stated, his earning capacity was reduced by 25%. He raised claim under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, for short 'the Act', after due notice. He claimed a lump sum amount of Rs. 14,000/- as compensation for loss of his left thumb. The claim was registered in the court of Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner under the provisions of the Act, Dhubri. On being served with the notice, the appellants appeared and contested the claim of the claimant denying the averments made by him. Besides other points on facts, the appellants raised the following legal points before the Commissioner. They are--(a) that the claim petition of Ramayan Sahani, the claimant, was not maintainable as he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act, (b) that the accident was due to his negligence; (c) that the earning of the claimant did not decrease by 25% due to loss of his left thumb; and (d) that he was not entitled to Rs. 14,000/- as lump sum compensation. Several issues were framed by the learned Commissioner. Thereafter, upon hearing the parties and also on scrutiny of the evidence on record the learned Commissioner by the impugned judgment and order dated 20-12-83 awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the claimant Ramayan Sahani. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award the present appeal has been presented by the appellants on substantial questions of law. The provision for appeal against the order of Commissioner on substantial questions of law is prescribed Under Section 30, N. III(b) of the Act. Mr. S.N. Chetia, the learned Additional Senior Central Government Standing Counsel submits that the learned Commissioner wrongly accepted the respondent No. 1 as workman and awarded compensation for the injury sustained. In other words, the learned Counsel has submitted that the respondent No. 1, Ramayan Sahani being not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act he is not entitled to any compensation under the provision of the Act. This stand of Mr. Chetia appears to be the crux of the matter. If the respondent No. 1 was not a workman during the relevant period the question of awarding compensation under the provision of the Act does not arise. Therefore, it is, to be ascertained as to whether the respondent No. 1 was a workman within the meaning of provision of the Act. As regards the quantum the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the assessment of compensation was arbitrary and excessive. Let me examine whether the respondent No. 1 was workman within the meaning of the Act. Section 2(1)(n) of the Act defines workman as follows:
(3.) IT has not been disputed that the injury in question was caused to the respondent No. 1 in course of his employment as labourer while he was engaged to unload the foodgrains from truck to Railway wagon. The result of the injury was such that the respondent No. 1 had to lose his left hand thumb. It has been argued that the injury caused to the respondent No. 1 did not result in permanent disablement and, as such, even if he is held to be a workman yet he is not entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by the Commissioner.