A.P.RAVANI - (1.) While in employment with the respondent Co-operative Society deceased workman Naran Kara died. According to the appellants the workman died due to an injury on account of the accident which arose out of and during the course of employment. As the respondent-Society did not heed to the request made by the applicants for payment of compensation they filed an application for Compensation under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 (herein after referred to as the Act). The application has been dismissed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner). Hence this appeal.
(2.) The deceased workman was in the employment of the respondent Society. His work was to look after the buffaloes and to milk the buffaloes which were being kept in the dairy Farm of the respondentSociety. In the early morning of 15/01/1981 when the deceased workman had gone to the Dairy Farm to attend to his duties he stumbled down and fallen on a stone. Thereafter he died. On these allegations the dependents of the deceased workman i.e. Bai Amri Naran widow of the deceased and Moti Naran the daughter of the deceased filed application for compensation. It was alleged that the monthly wages of the deceased workman were Rs. 277.50 and that the respondent-employer had failed to make payment of compensation amount without justification. Therefore it was claimed that the applicants were entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 18000.00 and were also entitled to claim penalty of Rs. 9 0 together with interest and most.
(3.) The application was resisted by the respondent-Society enter alia on the ground that the deceased workman was a daily wage earner and his work was connoted with buffaloes. It was admitted that the deceased workman did die while he was at the Dairy Farm. But it was intended that he died on account of weakness resulting from old age and due to sickness from which he was suffering. According to the respondent the deceased workman felt giddiness and suffered a natural death and the death was on account of heart-failure. In short the defense of the respondent-Society was that there was no usual ignore. with the death and the accident. It was also entered that the provisions of the Act would not apply to the case inasmuch as no manufacturing activity was being carried on by the respondent-Society and the provisions of Bombay Shops and Establishments Act were not applicable.;