- (1.) The present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is directed against the award dated 13/05/2002 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in W.C.C.F. No. 15/1996, whereby the respondents have awarded a sum of Rs.86,764/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization by way of compensation for the death of Shri Budha Ram.
(2.) The short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the deceased Budha Ram happened to be the husband of the respondent No.1, and the father of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The respondents/claimants had filed the claim petition before the Commissioner alleging inter-alia that late Shri Budha Ram was appointed as Chowkidar by the appellant in the year 1992, and was paid Rs.2,000/- per month. It was further alleged that on 28/05/1994, when he was on duty at the premises of the appellant, situated at Amer road, in front of Jalmahal, he was bitten by a poisonous insect, due to which, he died on 29/05/1994 at SMS Hospital, Jaipur. According to the respondents/claimants, said Budha Ram having died during the course of his employment with the appellant, they were entitled to the compensation, as prayed for, in the claim petition. The said claim petition was resisted by the appellant by filing the reply denying the allegations made in the application, and further contending that the said Budha Ram was not the employee of the appellant. According to the appellant, the subject land was taken on lease in February, 1993, and therefore, the deceased could not have been appointed as Chowkidar in January, 1992. It was also contended that the deceased was never paid any salary by the appellant, as alleged in the claim petition. The Commissioner, after appreciating the evidence on record, had passed the impugned award, against which the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) It has been sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Kasliwal for the appellant that the Commissioner had committed an error in awarding the compensation under the said Act, though there was no evidence to establish the nexus between the appellant, and the deceased as that of the employer and employee. According to Mr. Kasliwal, the deceased did not fall within the definition of "workman", as contained in Section 2(n) of the said Act. The counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. vs. Ramu Pasi & Anr., 2006 1 SCC 377, and in case of Lakshminarayana Shetty vs. Shantha & Anr., 2003 9 SCC 190, as also the decisions of other High Courts in support of his submission that the claimants have to prove that the deceased was the workman within the definition under the said Act.;