Bapu Singh vs Pyaribai and Others

K.L. Shrivastava, J.—This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ''the Act'') is against the award dated 10.12.1982 made by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore.

It is not in dispute that the deceased Gumansingh, husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was employed as an agricultural labourer by the appellant in his farm which has a well fitted with an electric motor. It was on 27.6.1977 at about 8.30 p.m. that deceased Gumansingh received electric shock there and died in consequence.

The respondents filed an application for compensation alleging that the death of Gumansingh occurred due to employment injury received during the course of employment and claimed Rs. 11,520/- as compensation under the Act.

The appellant resisted the application contending that Gumansingh''s employment is not governed by Clause (xxix) of Schedule II of the Act.

The learned Commissioner relying on the D.B. decision in Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited and Another Vs. Sumitra Bai Battan and Others, held that Gumansingh was covered under the clause referred above. .,

According to the first proviso to Section 30 of the Act no appeal shall lie unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this Court is that Gumansingh''s employment in the contrivance which pertains to family is not covered under the clause and as he was not a workman the award deserves to be set aside.

The point for consideration is whether the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Section 3(1) of the Act occurring in Chapter II and providing for employer''s liability for compensations reads thus:

If personal injury is caused to a workman by-accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

Workman'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(n) of the Act and according to the definition and reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them.

According to Section 2(1)(n)(ii)'' workman'' amongst other means any person who is employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II. For our purposes Clause (xxix) of the Schedule is relevant. It reads thus:

The following persons are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) and subject to the provisions of that section, that is to say, any person-who is. (xxix) employed in farming by tractors or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity, or.

In the head note to the decision in Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited and Another Vs. Sumitra Bai Battan and Others, ), it has been stated as under:

Where an employee in a farm with electric motors for water supply is irrigator and manual labour in irrigation is required for supervising and controlling the flow of water there is a nexus between his work and the mechanical pumps or electric motors. Irrigation is obviously a necessary part of ''farming''. Hence he is a workman defined by Section 2(1)(n) read with the clause.

From the foregoing discussions it has to be held that the appellant''s contention that the deceased Gumansingh was not a workman has no substance and the appeal must, therefore, fail.

In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, Counsel''s fee Rs. 100/-only if certified