MOSSOMAT MOTIJHARI DEVI Vs. BINDESWARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE true import of the definition of a workman in s. 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923, and in particular the impact of the exclusionary clause there in

(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass and indeed, in the context of the proviso to s. 30 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act)providing that no appeal shall lie against an order unless a substantial question of law is involved therein, they pale into relative insignificance. Nevertheless the basic terrafirma of the matrix thereof giving rise to the issue aforesaid, has to be necessarily noticed albeit with brevity. The appellant Mossomat motijhari Deviclaims to be the wife of late rameshwar Bind and had preferred the application for compensation in her alleged capacity of being his sole legal heir. It was her case that Rameshwar Bind above said was employed by respondent Bindeshwari Prasad chourasiafor nearly fourteen and a half months prior to 17 September 1975 first for carrying building materials from the market place to the site and later in the construction of the residential house of the respondent. It was alleged that the deceased had asked the respondent to supply adequate building materials, which was not done, and on 17 September he fell from the achaean in the course of the construction of the house of the respondent and suffered injuries to which he succumbed later at the Patna medical College Hospital. The appellant served notice on the respondent under s. 10 (2) of the Act which was refused by him leading to the proceeding before the commissioner under the Act.

(3.) IN his written statement the respondent took up the plea that the case as framed was not maintainable and categorically denied the employment of Rameshwar Bind for fourteen and a half months and instead the plea was that he was a purely casual worker brought by the mason Butan Rai and had worked in the house for paltry four days only. It was the case that Butan Rai, mistry, used to pick up labourers from the sheesh Mahal Chawk in Arrah town and the deceased was so engaged only four days prior to the accident in construction of the building which had started only a week ago. In terms it was pleaded that the deceased was not a workman as defined in the Act. The allegations of fact made on behalf of the applicant were categorically controverted.