CENTRAL MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN INSTITUTE LTD. versus RAMU PASI AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 690 · Decided: 08-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CENTRAL MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN INSTITUTE LTD. 
v. 
RAMU PASI AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 8, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
~ 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: 
Section 2(n)-"Workman"-Held, does not cover a casual worker-
..I 
c There is no evidence that claimant was employed for purposes of employer's 
trade or business-Claim petition before Labour Court was not 
maintainable-However, considering the small quantum awarded, the amount, 
if already paid, shall not be recovered-In the event, the money has not been 
paid to the claimant, the same shall be paid forthwith. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 979 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.1.98 of the Patna High Court in 
M.A. No. 153 of l992(R). 
E 
WITH 
C.A. No. 980 of2000. 
Anip Sachthey for the Appellant. 
F 
Ms. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. These two appeals relate to a claim made by Ramu 
Pasi (respondent No. 2) under the Workmen's Compensation ACt, 1923 (in 
G 
short 'the Act'). Adjudicating the claim made by the said Ramu Pasi claiming 
compensation under the Act for an alleged injury suffered on 11.06.1986, the 
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad (in short 'the Labour Court') awarded 
compensation of Rs. 4001. The injury, on the left ring finger, according to the 
" 
claimant was suffered when he was working in the factory of the appellant. 
An appeal was preferred before the Patna High Court under Section 30 of the 
H 
690 
CENTRAL MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN INSTITUTE LTD. 11. RAMU PAS! [PASAYA T, J.] 691 
Act taking the stand that Ramu Pasi is not covered by the expression 'workman', A 
as defined in Section 2(n) of the Act and, therefore, his claim petition before 
the Labour Court was not maintainable. Since, the Labour Court recorded a 
finding that the applicant Ramu Pasi was engaged as a casual worker, it 
should not have entertained the claim petition. Further, the employee was not 
employed for the purposes of the employer's trade and business. Learned 
Single Judge was of the view that the said question was really of an academic B 
interest because the quantum awarded was very small. A Letters Patent 
Appeal was preferred before the Division Bench, which came to be dismissed 
on the ground that the same was not maintainable. In these appeals, the order 
of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are assailed. 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after having recorded c 
a categorical finding that the claimant was a casual worker, his application for 
grant of compensation under the Act should not have been accepted. Ms. K. 
Sarada Devi, learned Amicus-Curiae, on the other hand submitted that 
considering the small quantum, this is not a fit case for our interference. 
Further the Labour Court having considered the nature of work rendered by D 
the respondent, entertained the claim petition. 
In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to take note 
of Section 2(n) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant point of time. At that 
time, Section 2(n) of the Act read as follows: 
"Section 2(n) "workman" means any person (other than a person 
whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise 
than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is -
E 
(i) a railway servant as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Railways 
Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), not permanently employed in any administrative, F 
district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any 
such capacity as it specified in Schedule II, or 
(ii) employed on monthly wages not exceeding (one thousand 
rupees) 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 
G 
H 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. S S.C.R. 
A 
is dead includes a reference to his dependants or any of them." 
B 
A bare reading of the said Act shows that the expression 'workman' as 
defined in the A~t does not cover a casual worker. There was also no definite 
material adduced to show that the claimant was employed for the purposes 
of the employer's trade or business. 
That being so, th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.