EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P W D UDAIPUR Vs. SHRI GIRDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE filing of this appeal ill befits the State which should be anxious to alleviate the misery of poor workman's family by paying some compensation rather than create hurdles.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed on the construction of a bridge which was being built on the National High way between Nathdwara and Ganwaguda. He was getting wages of Rs, 45/- per month and as a result of accident died on 30-5-70. His son filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') which is an Act to provide for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workman of compensation for injury by accident. Amongst the objects mentioned at the time of framing of the Act it was mentioned that the general principles of workmen's compensation command almost universal acceptance and that the advisability of the legislation has been accepted by the great majority and the Government of India believed that public opinion generally is in favour of legislation. THE claimant applied under the Act for the compensation due to him on account of the death of his father in the course of his employment. It was pleaded in the return that the deceased Girdhari was only a casual labour and did not come within the meaning of workman under the Act. Another objection taken was that the work which was being performed was not the trade or business of the employer and therefore Act was not applicable. At the time of arguments another point namely, that the Act was not applicable to the famine relief work was also taken. THE Tribunal has rejected the contention and has held that the deceased was a workman and was not engaged in a casual nature of work; that the work performed by the Public Works Department on National High Way is the trade or business and that the deceased could not be excluded from the definition of a workman. He also rejected the contention that the Act is not applicable to famine relief work. As a result he awarded Rs, 2,700/- to the claimant by his judgment dated 15. 2. 73. One should normally have thought that the department having failed before the Tribunal will rest and pause and not pursue the unfortunate victim of the accident. THE Department, however, thought otherwise and has come in appeal to this Court.