Chakravartti C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal on behalf of one Sahari Rajwami whose application for compensation on account of the death of her -husband, Chamari Rajwar, has been dismissed by the Commissioner.
(2.) According to the petition of the appellant, her husband sustained an injury "in course of his employment outdoor as a labourer in the Motor Vehicle Department." We are informed that the duties of the deceased person included loading of garbage in Corporation lorries with a forked instrument and unloading them into a railway wagon at the Chingrihata platform. It is alleged and not disputed that on 10-5-1951, he received an injury in the region of his ankle from the pronged instrument with which he was unloading the garbage at the railway platform and that wound having subsequently turned septic, it led to an attack of tetanus to which the man succumbed on 18-5-1951. On those facts, there could be no doubt that the injury arose out of the employment of the man and that it was also suffered in the course of his employment.
(3.) The real question, however, is, was the employment of the man 'such as made him a workman within the definition contained in the Act? Before the Commissioner, reliance appears to have been placed only on Clause (26) of the Schedule and it appears to have been argued that since it was the duty of the person concerned to load and unload garbage, he could be said to have been employed in the handling of goods. That argument did not appeal to the Commissioner, although he regretted having to decide against the widow.;