MADANLAL Vs. MANGALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Madanlal, an employer, from the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur, dated 15th April, 1959, awarding a sum of Rs. 900/- to the respondent Mangali in respect of an accident resulting in the death of Miss Gopi, daughter of the respondent.

(2.) THE material facts may be very briefly stated as follows : - Madanlal, the employer, is a clerk in Maharaja Umed Mills Ltd. , Pali. He owns two houses at Pali. One of the houses is used by him for his residence. THE other house is utilised for purposes of leasing it to others, and the employer has been deriving income therefrom. In respect of this second house, he started construction either by way of repairs or by way of additions and improvements in the year 1957. Miss Gopi, daughter of the respondent was employed as a labourer in connection with this construction. On 4th November,1957 when deceased Gopi was collecting construction materials on the ground-floor, the verandah on the third floor of the building under construction fell down and she received very serious and fatal injuries, which ultimately caused her death on the same day at 4-30 p. m. THE respondent Mst. Mangali is the mother of the deceased Gopi and is consequently her dependant. On 16th November, 1957, the respondent put up an application before the Commissioner for awarding to her Rs. 900/- as compensation on account of the death of Miss Gopi. THE appellant denied the claim of the respondent. His case was that Miss Gopi, the deceased, was a casual labourer employed on daily wages only and that the house was being constructed for the personal use of the non-applicant and consequently, Miss Gopi was not employed for the purpose of the employer's trade or business. He expressed ignorance about the allegation made by the respondent that she was a dependant of the deceased Gopi.

(3.) THE determination of the first contention depends upon the proper interpretation of the words "on monthly wages not exceeding'. Rs. 400/- According to the appellant, these words imply that the workman must be in receipt of monthly wages. I am not, however, prepared to accept this interpretation of these words. THEse words came up for consideration in Ellerman's City and Hall Lines vs. Asis Thomas (1 ). Beaumont C. J. after considering the various provisions of the Act expressed an opinion "that the reference to employment on monthly wages in sec. 2 (1), sub-clause (n) means employment at wages which did not exceed an average of Rs. 300/- (now Rs. 400/-) a month. It seems to me quite impossible, reading this Act as a whole, to say that it was limited to workmen who are employed by the month so that it would not include workmen employed by the day or by the week or by the year. If that were the meaning of the Act, every employer could get out of it by employing his workmen otherwise than by the month. I feel no doubt whatever that the meaning of the expression 'monthly wages not exceeding three hundred rupees' means wages which do not exceed on an average of Rs. 300/- a month. " THE learned Chief Justice in this connection derived support from sec. 5, which deals with the method of calculating wages.