GURBAKSH SINGH Vs. DHANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from a claim for compensation made by the legal representatives of one Gokal Ram on account of an accident that occurred on 25th March, 1964. The Commissioner acting under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dismissed the application on 20th October, 1966, principally on the ground that Gokal Ram (deceased) was a sub-contractor and hence not a workman within the meaning of the Act. On appeal u/.s 30, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that Gokal Ram was a workman within the meaning of the Act and also, he did die as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for determining the quantum of compensation,

(2.) In appeal, the appellant contends that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of the Act and the Commissioner was right in rejecting the claim for compensation. The relevant facts show that Gurbaksh Singh ,had taken a contract to construct some D.T.U. quarters. In connection with the white washing to be done in those quarters, Gokal Ram deceased had been appointed for doing that job on certain terms He was to be paid Rs. 6.00 per one thousand sq. ft. of completed work which consisted of the application of three coats. The cost of the material supplied to him for doing this work was to be adjusted against the payment. While doing this work, on 25th March 1964, the platform on which Gokal Ram was working collapsed so that he fell down and died. Keeping in view the terms on which Gokal Ram was working the Commissioner came to the conclusion that as a fixed monthly wage was not paid, Gokal Ram was not a workman. The learned Single Judge held that even if piece-rate payment was made to Gokal Ram, he could still be a workman within the meaning of the Act.

(3.) It was also held on the facts of the case that though the white-washing had to be done by Gokal Ram, the material for use in the white-washing process was to be supplied to Gokal Ram by the contractor, i.e., the present appellant and the material was to be utilised under the supervision of the contractor. The learned Single Judge held that if Gurbaksh Singh exercised control and supervision over the method of doing the work then the relationship of master and servant existed. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. V. State A I.R. 1957, S.C. 264 was relied upon.