- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Raj Rani And Another v. M/S. Narsing Das Mela Ram And Another
Judgment Summary — Shamsher Bahadur, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was filed by Raj Rani on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter Shukla, following the dismissal by the Commissioner of their claim for compensation of Rs. 3,500 under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The deceased, Jagdev Datt (husband of Raj Rani), was employed to paint the premises of the respondent firm, Narsingh Das Mela Ram, Katra Ahluwalian, Amritsar. On 7 February 1960, while painting, Jagdev Datt touched an electric wire at about 11:30 a.m., sustained an electric shock, fell from his stool, suffered intracranial hemorrhage and asphyxia, and died approximately three hours later.
It was not disputed that the accident occurred while he was engaged in painting the respondent firm's premises and that death followed from the injuries sustained. The Commissioner dismissed the claim, concluding that Jagdev Datt was not a workman entitled to compensation. The appellants challenged that conclusion before the High Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Jagdev Datt was a "workman" within the meaning of section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and Schedule II, such that his heirs are entitled to compensation.
- Whether the employment was of a casual nature and/or whether the employment was for the purposes of the employer's trade or business (both being conditions relevant to exclusion from the definition of "workman").
- Whether a substantial question of law arises to permit appeal to the High Court under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act — specifically whether the deceased was a workman on the facts found by the Commissioner.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Jagdev Datt was a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act and, having died from injuries sustained while painting the respondent's shop, the appellants (his heirs) are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,500 under the Act.
- The work of painting the shop was part of the respondent-firm's trade or business, and therefore the employment was for the purposes of the employer's trade or business.
- A substantial question of law is raised — in particular whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act on the admitted facts — permitting appellate interference under section 30.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent denied that Jagdev Datt was a workman and contended that his employment was casual in nature and not for the purposes of the employer's trade or business.
- The Commissioner had taken the view that the deceased was not engaged in the work of "repairs" (a point relied on to deny workman status), and the respondent defended the Commissioner's conclusion.
- Mr. Bhagirath Dass (respondent's counsel) argued that no substantial question of law was involved to sustain the appeal under the proviso to section 30(1).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sitharama Reddiar v. Ayyasami Gounder, A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 212 | Holds that the onus is on the employer to prove that the employment was of a casual nature so as to exclude the person from the category of "workman." | The court relied on this authority to reaffirm that the respondent-firm bore the burden of proving casual employment, a burden the respondent had not discharged. |
| Ebrahim Haji Jusab v. Jainibi Anuddin, A.I.R. 1933 Bom. 270 | Established that a mason employed by an owner to execute repairs was not a casual worker; emphasized employer's burden to prove casual employment. | The court found this Bombay Division Bench decision to be closest on facts and applied its principle analogously to a painter performing repair-type work, supporting the appellants' claim. |
| Kishorchand Bhai v. Damodar, A.I.R. 1957 M.P. 84 | Held that both conditions for exclusion under section 2(1)(n) must be satisfied before a person can be excluded from the category of "workman." | The court relied on this ruling to emphasize that exclusion requires proof of both casual employment and lack of connection with employer's trade/business; the respondent had not shown both. |
| Menton v. Cantwell, 1920 A.C. 781 (House of Lords) | Affirmed that both conditions (casualness and lack of connection with trade/business) must be satisfied for exclusion — cited Lord Birkenhead's observation. | The court invoked this English authority to support the proposition that the ingredients necessary for "workman" are the same as under English law and that both exclusion conditions are required. |
| Madanlal v. Mangali, 1958–65 A.C.J. 41 | Reiterated that the burden of proving the casual nature of employment rests on the employer under the Act. | The court cited this Single Bench decision to further support the allocation of onus to the employer, consistent with other cited authorities. |
| Karnani Industrial Bank v. Ranjan (Calcutta High Court) | Interpreted section 12 to require that the execution of the work in the course of which the injury occurred must be an ordinary part of that person's trade or business when liability arises via subcontracting. | The court considered this authority but distinguished it because, in the present case, Jagdev Datt was directly employed by the respondent-firm, and painting the shop plainly fell within the firm's trade/business. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by examining the statutory definition of "workman" in clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the categories listed in Schedule II (which include persons employed in construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of buildings above certain dimensions). The following points summarize the court's step-by-step reasoning as set out in the opinion:
- Statutory framework: The court set out section 2(1)(n) and the relevant clause in Schedule II that includes persons employed in work of construction, maintenance, repair or demolition (the Schedule II list being part of the definition of "workman").
- Burden of proof: Citing authorities (including Sitharama Reddiar and other cases), the court emphasized the settled principle that the onus to prove that employment was casual and not connected with the employer's trade/business rests on the employer.
- Findings of fact: The Commissioner had found (and it was established) that Jagdev Datt was paid a wage amounting to Rs. 150 per month, had been doing the work for about a week, and was painting a wall when he touched an electric wire, fell and sustained fatal injuries.
- Critique of Commissioner's reasoning: The Commissioner concluded the deceased was not a workman, in part because he was not engaged in "repairs." The court rejected this reasoning. The court noted that the Commissioner did not address the legal question of what constitutes casual employment and simply stated (ipsa dixit) that the employment was casual — an insufficient basis given the employer bears the onus.
- Nature of employment: The court emphasized that in determining whether employment is casual, the nature of the service must be assessed rather than its short duration; a liberal construction of the Act is required to determine entitlement to compensation.
- Application of precedents: The court relied on the cited authorities (including Ebrahim Haji Jusab and Kishorchand Bhai) to conclude there was no principled distinction between the facts of the present case (a painter engaged in work akin to repairs) and those earlier decisions which held similar workers not to be casual employees for exclusion purposes.
- Section 12 and the question of subcontracting: The court considered Karnani Industrial Bank v. Ranjan, which addresses liability in subcontracting situations, but distinguished it because Jagdev Datt was directly employed by the respondent-firm; painting the shop was within the business's ambit, so section 12's subcontracting context was not controlling here.
- Substantial question of law: The court found that a substantial question of law existed — specifically whether the deceased was a workman on the facts found by the Commissioner — and that appellate interference was warranted where law had been wrongly applied to admitted facts.
- Conclusion of analysis: On the admitted facts, and in light of the employer's failure to discharge the burden of proving casual employment and lack of connection with the business, the court held that Jagdev Datt was a workman and was injured (and died) in the course of his employment.
Holding and Implications
Holding: APPEAL SUCCEEDED; the order of the learned Commissioner is set aside.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The appellants (Raj Rani and her minor daughter Shukla) are entitled to the claimed compensation of Rs. 3,500 under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
- The appellants are also awarded the costs of the appeal.
- The finding of the Commissioner that the deceased was not a workman was reversed; the court held that the deceased was employed in the course of the respondent-firm's business and was not shown to be a casual employee for purposes of exclusion.
Broader implications: The judgment applies and reiterates existing principles concerning the onus on the employer to establish casual employment and the requirement that both exclusion conditions under section 2(1)(n) be satisfied. The opinion does not purport to lay down any novel legal principle beyond the application of these established authorities to the facts of the case.
Shamsher Bahadur, J.:— This is an appeal of Raj Rani on her own behalf and that of her minor daughter Shukla whose claim for compensation of Rs. 3,500/- has been dismissed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. Jagdev Datt husband of Raj Rani was employed for painting the premises of the shop owned by the respondent-firm, Narsingh Das Mela Ram, Katra Ahluwalian, Amritsar, when he died on 7th of February, 1960, three hours after having sustained an electric shock as a result of the injuries sustained at 11-30 a.m It is not disputed that the accident occurred while Jagdev Datt was engaged in the work of painting the premises of the shop belonging to the respondent-firm, and it has not been contested that the death took place a few hours later as a result of the electric shock According to the appellants Jagdev Datt was a workman and the death having taken place as a result of injuries sustained during the course of his employment compensation is payable under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. While it is denied that Jagdev Datt was a workman and the accident took place during the course of his employment it is not contested that the amount claimed would become payable to the appellants as his heirs under the Act if in fact he was a workman and the work in which he was employed was during the course of business of the respondent firm.
3. A workman, under clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act:
“means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is:
(i) a railway servant as defined in section 3 the Indian Railways Act, 1890, not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or
(ii) employed on monthly wages not exceeding four hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II,………”
4. The list of persons mentioned in Schedule II are included as workmen within the meaning of section 2(1)(n) and includes inter alia a person who is:
“(vii) employed in the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of:
(a) any building which is designed, to be or is or has been more than one storey in height above the ground or twelve feet or more from the ground level to the apex of the roof; or
5. In order to exclude a person from the category of workman entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it has to be shown that he is a casual employee and is not engaged in the trade or business of an employer. There is abundance of authority for the proposition that the onus of proving both these matters is on the employer. In Sitharama Reddiar v. Ayyasami Gounder . A.I.R 1956 Mad. 212., Romaswami, J. of the Madras High Court had occasion to examine this matter in detail. It was observed at page 213 in para 6 that “the onus in such cases would be on the employer to prove the condition which is necessary for the purpose of excluding a person from the category of a workman, and it has to be shown that the workman's employment was of a casual nature.”
6. It has been proved in the present instance that Jagdev Datt had been employed on a wage which worked out to Rs. 150/- per month and he had been doing the work for about a week. It has further been established that he was painting a wall when he touched an electric wire and fell down from the stool where he was standing and intracranial haemorrhage was caused and asphyxia occurred which caused his death. The learned Commissioner has taken the view that the case of Jagdev Datt does not fall within clause (viii) because he was not engaged in the work of repairs. It is conceded by Mr. Bhagirath Dass that he is unable to support this reasoning of the learned Commissioner to uphold the conclusion that Jagdev Datt was not a workman. It is, however, contended by him that the deceased was a casual worker and his employment was not for the purposes of trade or business of the respondent-firm. Ramaswami, J. in Sitharama's case observed that casual employment is employment necessitated by chance circumstances, but where a person is under a contract with an employer to do work at recurring times which must, or which it is known beforehand it will be, convenient to do at such recurring times, the employment of such a person is not of a casual nature.
7. In construing what is an employment of a casual nature, it is the nature of the service which has to be looked at and not its duration. With the progress of times, the concept and the circumstances in which a workman is entitled to compensation has considerably widened and a liberal construction has to be put on this phrase. The learned Commissioner did not direct his mind to this problem at all and his mere ipsa dixit does not render the employment casual in nature. The respondent-firm, on whom the onus lay, has not established that the appointment of Jagdev Datt was casual.
8. In the Bombay case of Ebrahim Haji Jusab… v. Jainibi Anuddin…. . A.I.R 1933 Bom. 270., it was held by the Division Bench of Patkar and Barlee, JJ. that a mason who was employed by the owner of property at Parel and who fell from the scaffolding while executing repairs to his building, was not a workman whose employment was of a casual nature. This is a case which is closest to the present one and there is no distinction in principle or reason between a mason and a painter both of whom are employed in the work of repairs. It may be observed that in Ebrahim Haji Jusab's case also, the Bench held that the onus is always on the employer to prove the condition which is necessary for the purpose of excluding a person from the category of a workman, and it has to be shown that the workman's employment was of a casual nature. Another ruling which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is a Division Bench judgment of Kishorchand Bhai v. Damodar . A.I.R 1957 M.P 84., which was heard by the Letters Patent Bench of Chief Justice Hidayatullah (now Justice of the Supreme Court) and Chaturvedi, J. It was held by the Bench that both the limits of the conditions of exclusion in section 2(1)(n) have to be satisfied before a person can be excluded from the category of ‘workman’.
9. If a man is employed for the purposes of the trade or business the employer is liable, even though the employment is of a casual nature. In that case the person was engaged in the construction of a godown for the purposes of storing grain which was held by the Court to be so vitally connected with the business of dealing in grain that there can be no doubt that a mason constructing it is employed for the purposes of the employer's trade or business, and even though such a mason is employed casually he will be deemed to be a workman under section 2(1)(n). Reliance was placed on a decision of the House of Lords in which it was observed by Lord Birkenhead, L.C, that both the conditions have to be satisfied vide Menton v. Cantwell . 1920 A.C 781, at 786.. The ingredients necessary for constituting a person as a workman are the same as are under the English Law. Lastly, there is a Single Bench ruling of Chhangani, J. of the Rajasthan High Court in Madanlal v. Mangali . 1958-65 A.C.J 41.. Where it was held that the burden of proving the casual nature of the employment is under the scheme of the Act, upon the employer.
10. On the facts which have been found by the learned Commissioner, there appears to be no doubt that the appellants are entitled to succeed. The learned Commissioner had no warrant to say that Jagdev Datt was not a workman when his employment was not of a casual nature and in any event he was employed in the course of the business of the respondent-firm. It appears that the mind of the Commissioner was influenced by the fact that the deceased was not engaged in the work of repairs and it is not denied that the word ‘repair’ as it occurs in clause (viii) of Schedule II has been over-looked by the Commissioner. That the deceased was engaged in the work of repair does not admit of any doubt.
11. Mr. Bhagirath Dass argued that no question of law is involved in the case and has relied on proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, in which it is said that the appeal to the High Court would not lie unless a substantial question of law is involved. In my opinion, the substantial question of law in the present case is whether the deceased person was a workman within the meaning of the Act and on the facts found by the Commissioner himself. When law has been wrongly applied to admitted facts interference in appeal is clearly called for under section 30. The learned counsel has also relied on a Division Bench authority of the Calcutta High Court in Karnani Industrial Bank v. Ranjan in which it was held by Rankin, C.J and Costello, J. that section 12 contemplates that for a person to be liable for compensation it is necessary that the execution of the work in the course of which the workman is injured should be an ordinary part of that person's trade or business. Now, section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act deals with a contingency where any person in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person for the execution of the work and some person during the course of this sub-contract receives injuries for which compensation is sought. In the present case, Jagdev Datt was directly employed by the respondent-firm and the work of painting the shop where the business is carried on clearly comes within the ambit of the trade or business of the respondent-firm.
12. In my opinion, there is no escape from the conclusion that Jagdev Datt was a worker and he received the injuries during the course of his employment. In this view of the matter, the appeal must succeed and the order of the learned is Commissioner set aside. The appellants should be entitled to the sum of Rs. 3,500/- as compensation. The appellants will also get the costs of this appeal.
13. Appeal succeeded.
Alert