JANKI DEVI Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal against the order, dated 7th March, 1958, passed by the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen Compensation Act VIII of 1923 arises out of an application made by the appellant Shrimati Janki Devi under section 10 of that Act seeking direction under section 4(l)(a) of the Act for payment of Rs. 2400/ - by way of compensation to her because of the loss of the life of her husband Gainda Ram, who died as a result of the injuries sustained by him while working as a labourer on the respondent's building at Rs. 2/8/ - per diem. Apart from disputing the rate of the daily wages, the respondent Joginder Singh contested the application inter alia on the plea that the deceased Gainda Ram was not a "workman" within the definition of that word given in section 2(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, and thus he was not entitled to any relief under that Act. An issue on that point was struck. Various other issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were also tried by the Commissioner, who on a consideration of the evidence led before him returned the finding that "the employment of the deceased (Gainda Ram) on 4th November, 1956, was purely of a casual nature and he was not a 'workman' ". In view of this finding the learned Commissioner dismissed the appellant's claim, though on the merits of the case he had found that if the appellant had a right to receive compensation under Act 8 of 1923, she would be entitled to Rs. 2100/ - because of the loss of the life of her husband. It is against this order that Shrimati Janki Devi has come up in appeal.

(2.) A preliminary objection to the competency of the appeal has been taken by S. Ranjit Singh Narula, who appears for the respondent. Pointing out that the finding of the Commissioner that Gainda Ram deceased was not a "workman" as defined in section 2(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act as his employment on the date of the accident was purely of a casual nature, he contends that this being a pare rending of fact, no appeal against the same lay under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. After going through the relevant findings and hearing the parties' counsel, I find considerable force in this objection.

(3.) THE question raised in these proceedings relates to the correctness of the finding of the Commissioner about the casual nature of the employment of the appellant's deceased -husband. That matter has been decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Thus, it is a finding of fact which the appellant assails. No question of a law is raised in the grounds of appeal nor does the decision of this matter involve any question of law.