S. N. VARIAVA, J. - (1.) THIS Appeal is against an Order dated 7th May, 1997 by which the first appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed in limine.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows : The petitioner is a sole proprietory concern. It runs its workshop of shaping steel sheets into various shapes and forms. The 1st respondent was, at the relevant time, working as a press operator with the appellant. On 27th January, 1993 while working on a press, the 1st respondent sustained injuries to his right index finger and thumb. The appellant rushed the 1st respondent to the Civil Hospital at Gurgaon (Haryana). The injuries necessitated amputation of 2.5 x 0.5 Cms. of the index finger. On 14th June, 1993, the 1st respondent filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest thereon @ 16% per annum. The appellant in his reply, inter alia, claimed that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act would not apply to his establishment. On 15th October, 1996 the Commissioner held that the Workmen's Compensation Act applied and that the appellant was liable to pay compensation in a sum of Rs. 29,814/- together with Rs. 5,000/- as penalty and interest at 12% per annum.
(3.) THE appellant preferred an Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. That Appeal came to be dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 7th May, 1997. It is admitted that the 1st respondent was working as a press operator with the appellant at the relevant time. It is admitted that the accident did took place on 27th January, 1993 and that it resulted in injuries to the right index finger and thumb of the 1st respondent and that this necessitated amputation of 2.5 x 0.5 Cms. of the index finger. Mr. Vasudev however, submitted that the Workmen's Compensation Act did not apply to the appellant's establishment. He submitted that Section 2(n) (ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides that a workman is a person employed in a capacity specified in Schedule II. He then referred to Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act and pointed out that under Item 2 of Schedule II a person would be a workman provided he is employed in any premises where a manufacturing process as defined in clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 was being carried on. He submitted that this showed that the provisions of the Factories Act were being incorporated into the Workmen's Compensation Act. He submitted that this is also clear from the fact that over the year there have been a number of amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act incorporating therein provision of the Factories Act or provisions similar thereto. He then referred to Sections 2(k) and 2 (m) of the Factories Act and submitted that under the Factories Act the manufacturing process must be in a factory where ten or more workers are working (if the manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power) or twenty or more persons are working (if the manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power). He submitted that a joint reading of all these provisions makes it clear that even for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act only those persons who are employed in a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948 would be entitled to make a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act.;