JUDGMENT
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. Facts in brief are employment. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000 was that Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh, hus- prayed for as compensation under Section band of claimant-respondent No. 1 and the 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, father of claimant-respondent Nos. 2 to 4, was engaged in the work of repairing of electric motor and its fittings and he used to earn Rs. 150 per day. He used to spend 2/3rd of his income on the claimants. Non-applicants-appellants engaged him in repairing work of the pump installed in 60 ft deep well situated in their residential premises. While performing it, he was injured and ultimately died during the course of employment. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000 was prayed for as compensation under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act 1923.
2. Non-applicants-appellants in their reply stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of Amar Singh himself. He was taken out of the well by the appellant No.3 and was taken to Nagpur for medical treatment. He was an ordienry labourer and not a skilled laourer. They also refuted his daily income at the rate of Rs. 150. It is statedin the reply that the appellant No. 3 alone engaged Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh for the said work and the charges were settled at Rs. 50 only. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had no concern with the engagement of Amar Singh for the said purpose and they were not his employers. It is contended in the reply that the application is not tenable and the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation.
3. The learned Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Chhindwara after recording the evidence allowed the application and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,94,640 towards compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent.
4. An appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is tenable only on substantial question of law. After perusal of the record of the case including the memo of appeal, following two substantial questions of law are found to be involved:
(1) Whether the deceased Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh was a workman within the definition of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
(2) Whether all the appellants are liable to pay compensation under the provisions of the said Act?
5. After considering the submissions, I am of the opinion that appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated herein-below.
6. First submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the deceased Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh was not a workman within the meaning of definition contained in Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. She stated that he was a casual worker and the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act could not have awarded compensation without raising an issue on this point and further without deciding this issue. The learned Counsel relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Lakshminarayana Shetty v. Shantha 2001 ACJ 1561 (SC). It is submitted that Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh was engaged merely by appellant No. 3 and the other appellants cannot be made liable without giving a finding that whether he was a workman and whether appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were his employers. In the said case there seems to be a denial that the person engaged for painting work was not a workman. In the light of the said plea, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that without deciding this crucial question, no compensation could be awarded.
7. On perusal of the reply submitted on behalf of the non-applicants-appellants, it is seen that in their joint reply they have admitted the engagement of Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh for the work of motor repairing. They have merely stated that he was not a skilled labourer. In para 3 of the reply, it is admitted that the appellant No. 3 had engaged Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh for taking out the motor from the well to repair it. It is nowhere stated in the reply that Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the said Act and the claimants are not entitled for the compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. In para 11 of the reply, it is stated that the accident did not occur due to negligence of the appellants. On the contrary, it is stated in para 12 of the reply that the death of Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh was caused due to imbalance on account of negligence of Amar Singh himself. In the present case, the appellants have, thus, not denied the capacity of Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh as a workman. They have merely stated that Amar Singh was engaged by appellant No. 3 alone to repair the motor installed/fitted in the well situated at the property belonging to the appellants jointly. Considering the pleadings of appellants, it is clear that no issue was involved in the case whether Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the said Act and this point was not required to be decided by raising an issue. Thus, in the light of pleadings, an issue whether Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh was a workman or not within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) was not required to be raised and/or discussed.
8. However, this Court gave an anxious consideration to the said objection. Section 2(1)(n) of the said Act lays down:
(n) 'workman' means any person who is--
xxx xxx xxxx
(ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them.
Schedule II further lays down:
The following persons are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) and subject to the provisions of that section, that is to say, any person who is--
xxx xxx xxxx
(xlii) employed in installation, maintenance or repair of pumping equipment used for lifting of water from wells, tube-wells, ponds, lakes, streams and the like; or
9. Taking the aforesaid into consideration, the deceased Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh is found to be a workman within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act.
10. Next submission of learned Counsel for appellant is that appellant No. 3 alone is liable to pay the amount of compensation because he had personally engaged Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh for the work of repairing of motor pump. Learned Counsel submitted that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had no concern with it and they are not liable to pay the compensation. It is seen that the definition of the 'employer' contained in Section 2(1)(n) of the said Act is of inclusive nature. Since, the well wherein the motor pump was installed was a common property of the appellants, they will be deemed to be employers for the purpose of repairing work of such motor.
11. In the result, this Court after giving anxious consideration to the points raised by the appellants holds that Amar Singh alias Amrit Singh was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) read with Schedule II of said Act. Since he was engaged for the job of motor repairing work installed and fitted within the premises jointly belonging to the appellants, all the appellants are equally liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act.
12. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded to the respondents is on higher side. Learned Counsel is unable to substantiate the aforesaid contention and the same is hereby rejected. Thus, learned the counsel appearing for the appellants could not successfully dispute before this Court, the quantum of compensation and the man- the appeal and in the result ner in which the amount of compensation was arrived at. In view of this no legal error is found in the impugned order and substantial question of law Nos. 1 and 2 are decided against appellants. No other substantial question of law is involved in appeal is hereby dismissed, however, without costs.