Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 Workmen's Compensation Act (V111 of 1923), Section 2 (n) Employees must be employed and exceed the stipend of employment for any purpose other than the employer's business means monthly wages It is important that the wage is not more than 300 per month on average \ \ r \ n To exclude an individual from the definition of labor, his work must be of the nature and he must be employed for the purposes of trade or business purposes. Otherwise the job would have to be fulfilled. (P10) \ r \ n Similarly, with regards to the monthly wage reg, it is clear that the meaning of this act is employment on wages not exceeding Rs 300 per month on average, if this was not the case then every employer would have to pay his own responsibilities. Avoids By employing the Labor Air 1938 Boney P110 daily under this Act. Air 1935 Med P 721 (722); 1933 color p 208 followed (p 10) \ r \ n
P. L D. 1949 Baluchistan 9
Before Bacon, J. C.
ZOOMAN AND MUHAMMAD JAN‑--
Versus
KHUDAI RAHM KHAN
Civil Reference No. 2 of 1949 under the Workmen's Compensation Act decided on 19th April 1949.
Workmen's Compensation Act (V111 of 1923), S. 2 (n) Workmen ----Must be casual worker and employed for purpose other than employer's business to merit exclusion from definition‑‑--- Monthly wages means employment at wages not exceeding Rs. 300 per month on average.
To exclude a person from the definition of "workman" his work must be of a casual nature and ‑he must be employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business. Both these qualifications must be fulfilled. (p. 10)
As regards "monthly wages" it is obvious that the meaning of the Act is employment at wages which do not exceed an average of Rs. 300 per month. Were this not the case, then every employer would avoid his obligations under the Act by employing daily labour. A. I R. 1938 Boni. p. 110 ; A. I. R. 1935 Mad. p. 721 (722) ; 1933 Rang. p. 208 followed. (p. 10)
Bacon, J. C.---‑This is a reference made by the Commissioner under section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 19 3. The main point requiring clarification is whether the deceased coolies were casual workers and if so, whether they are entitled to compensation under the Act: The fact that they were casual workers is not denied, but the Commissioner seems to be in doubt as to whether the provisions of the Act can be enforced in this case. The answer to this question can be found in section 2 (n) of the Act which if read carefully will make the point quite clear, especially the portion in brackets. To exclude a person from the definition of "workman his work must be of a casual nature and he must be employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business. Both these qualifications must be fulfilled. It thus follows that a coolie if only employed for a day but for the purposes of his employer's trade is protected by the Act. As regards "monthly wages" it is obvious that the meaning of the Act is employment at wages which do not exceed an average of Rs. 300 per month. Were this not the case, then every employer would avoid his obligations under the Act by employ ing daily labour This interpretation is fully supported in A. I. R. 1938,1 Bom. p. 110 and by a discussion of this law contained in A, I. R. 193.5 Mad. p. 721 (722) and also A. 1. R. 1933 Rang. p. 203.
A. H. Reference answered
Related judgments — Judicial Commissioner Court Balochistan, 1949
