DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. NONIAR BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference being made by learned Single Judge, this matter was placed before a Division Bench to adjudicate the question whether Forest Guard in the Wild Life Conservation Division of State Government is a 'workman' under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923'(in short, the 'Act').

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspect is necessary before we take up the question referred for adjudication. One Sk. Noor Mohammad was working as a Forest Guard under the Forest Range Officer, Kujang. While he was on patrolling duty in the forest of Nookitola he was killed by certain poachers. Claim was lodged by his legal representatives under the Act claiming compensation on the premises that deceased who was a workman was aged about 42 years at the time of death, and was drawing a sum of Rs. 1106/ - per month as his salary, and was entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The Divisional Forest Officer, Wild -life Conservation Division, Chandbali, Forest Range Officer, Kujang and Chief Wild -life Warden were impleaded as opposite parties. The only dispute raised related to wage and salary of the deceased in the written statement filed by Divisional Forest Officer. It was stated that on the basis of decision of Government, claimants were entitled to ex gratia payment of Rs. 50,000/ -along with family pension and facility of employment to one of his legal representatives.

(3.) IN this appeal Under section 30 of the Act, stand of the appellants is that deceased was not a workman and in any event adequate compensation having been provided in terms of notification referred to above, additional amount directed to be paid is without any basis. Learned counsel for claimants submitted that no dispute was raised before the Commissioner that the deceased was not a workman. On the contrary, it was accepted that deceased was a workman but prayer was to restrict benefit in terms of the notification.