FAO No. 115 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 115 of 1986 Date of decision: September 08, 2009 M/s Mada Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory ........ Appellant Versus Gurcharan Kaur and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. J C Verma, Senior Advocate with Ms Meenakshi, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the respondent s -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is an appeal against the order dated 28.09.1985 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, vide which, the appellant was directed to pay Rs.40,500/- on account of compensation and penalty and 6% interest on the sum of Rs.27,000/- from the date of death till the date of payment. While challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that neither the deceased, Gulzar Singh was a regular FAO No. 115 of 1986 2 worker in the factory, nor was concerned with the working of the factory and, therefore, his death was not caused during his employment. Further, no postmortem was held, which may go to show the cause of death and that the amount paid at the time of accident in cash for the purpose of medicines etc. has not been taken into account. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the Commissioner. From the pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the deceased was in the employment of the appellant and that he continued to be in the employment of the appellant up till the time of his death. It is admitted that the deceased was employed as a worker at the rate of Rs.32/- per day and on the date of death, he was digging a well and while doing so, he was buried underneath due to the sliding of the mud. There is no doubt that the death of Gulzar Singh occurred during the course of his employment with the appellant. No law has been brought to the notice of the Court to show that a casual labour is not entitled to the compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge September 08, 2009 mohan