Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZOOMAN AND MUHAMMAD JAN VS Respondent: KHUDAI RAHM KHAN
P
P. L D. 1949 Baluchistan 9 Before Bacon, J. C. ZOOMAN AND MUHAMMAD JAN‑-- Versus KHUDAI RAHM KHAN Civil Reference No. 2 of 1949 under the Workmen's Compensation Act decided on 19th April 1949. Workmen's Compensation Act (V111 of 1923), S. 2 (n) Workmen ----Must be casual worker and employed for purpose other than employer's business to merit exclusion from definition‑‑--- Monthly wages means employment at wages not exceeding Rs. 300 per month on average. To exclude a person from the definition of "workman" his work must be of a casual nature and ‑he must be employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business. Both these qualifications must be fulfilled. (p. 10) As regards "monthly wages" it is obvious that the meaning of the Act is employment at wages which do not exceed an average of Rs. 300 per month. Were this not the case, then every employer would avoid his obligations under the Act by employing daily labour. A. I R. 1938 Boni. p. 110 ; A. I. R. 1935 Mad. p. 721 (722) ; 1933 Rang. p. 208 followed. (p. 10) Bacon, J. C.---‑This is a reference made by the Commissioner under section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 19?3. The main point requiring clarification is whether the deceased coolies were casual workers and if so, whether they are entitled to compensation under the Act: The fact that they were casual workers is not denied, but the Commissioner seems to be in doubt as to whether the provisions of the Act can be enforced in this case. The answer to this question can be found in section 2 (n) of the Act which if read carefully will make the point quite clear, especially the portion in brackets. To exclude a person from the definition of "workman his work must be of a casual nature and he must be employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business. Both these qualifications must be fulfilled. It thus follows that a coolie if only employed for a day but for the purposes of his employer's trade is protected by the Act. As regards "monthly wages" it is obvious that the meaning of the Act is employment at wages which do not exceed an average of Rs. 300 per month. Were this not the case, then every employer would avoid his obligations under the Act by employ ing daily labour This interpretation is fully supported in A. I. R. 1938,1 Bom. p. 110 and by a discussion of this law contained in A, I. R. 193.5 Mad. p. 721 (722) and also A. 1. R. 1933 Rang. p. 203. A. H. Reference answered