SATIYA Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER P W D BUILDINGS AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 (1) (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by the dependants of deceased Babulal who at all material times, was employed in the services of the Public Works Department (Building and Works ). Narsimhapur.

(2.) IT is common ground that the deceased Babulal was employed as a chowkidar in the office of Public Works Department. On the night of 12th April, 1968, a burglary chanced to take place in the office in which Babulal was murdered by the miscreants. Babulal was admittedly on duty on the night in question and had been enjoined to look after the premises which was being used as office by the respondents.

(3.) IT is not disputed now, and which fact has been fully proved by the evidence on record, that at the time of the murder, deceased Babulal was drawing Rs. 80 per month as wages. The appellants who are the dependants of deceased Babulal claim a sum of Rs. 6,000 as compensation as according to them, deceased Babulal was a workman and had lost his life in an accident in course of his duties. They also claim Rs. 3,000 as penalty under Section 4a (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and interest at the rate of Rs. 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. The respondents deny that the deceased Babulal was a workman on various grounds and one of them being that he was borne on contingent establishment.