IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.12. 2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.4143 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Adiyur Myilsamy Gounder, Adiyur, Jamin Kaliyapuram, Pollachi Taluk .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1. Rangammal 2. Karuppasamy(Minor) 3. Govindaraj(Minor) 4. Karuppal (Minors 2 and 3 rep. By their guardian1st respondent) .. Respondents/Petitioners . . . Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923, against the award and decree dated 06.11.2008 made in W.C. No. 55 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation,(Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Coimbatore . . . . For Appellant : Mr.Ravindaran for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co For respondents : Mr.. . . . . . J U D G M E N T This appeal has been filed by the owner of the agricultural land aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Coimbatore, dated 06.11.2008 in W.C.No.55 of 2005. 2. The appellant wanted to deepen his irrigation Well for agricultural use and had engaged the services of Agricultural Engineering Department who undertook the work of blasting the Well https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and it was done. Thereafter, several workmen were employed to remove the blasted rock,so as to use the Well that was deepened by the blasting process undertaken by the Agricultural Engineering Department. In that process one of the workers, by name, Palanisamy suffered grievous injuries while removing the rocks and he died. A claim was made by the wife,children and mother of the deceased for compensation for a sum of Rs.3,53,871.50/- 3. The claim was resisted by the present appellant inter alia stating that though the deceased is a workman in terms of Section 2(n)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the nature of work performed by him does not fall under the category specified under Schedule II, at Serial No.XL of the Act. Serial No.XL of Schedule II reads as follows: "employed, otherwise than in cleric al capacity, in the construction, boring or deepening of an open well/dug well through mechanical contrivances." Therefore, according to the appellants, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, claimants cannot seek compensation consequent to the death of the so called workman. Appellants contention is that the deceased is a casual labour. 4. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation came to the conclusion that the deceased is a workman under Section 2(n)(ii) of the Act, in view of the amendment to the Act, which came into effect from 08.12.2000 (Act 46 of 2000). This position is not in dispute. 5. As far as the plea that the nature of the employment does not fall under Serial No.XL of Schedule II is concerned, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased in this case was engaged in deepening of the open well and he died in an accident that had happened in the course of and out of the said employment. The Commissioner negatived the plea that the deceased along with others were doing only the casual job of removing debris. The nature of work specified in serial No.(XL) to Schedule II will include any persons employed for deepening of the open well as in the case on hand. Blasting operation is a part of the process of deepening well and the removal of the blasted rocks is also relatable to deepening of the open Well. 6. The Commissioner of Labour has rightly concluded that the deceased in this case was employed in deepening of the Well and the reasoning of the Commissioner is in consonance with the provision of the Act and the Schedule. No other interpretation is possible in this case. The appellant is not able to establish as to how removing of the stones blasted for deepening of the Well is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ connected with the work of deepening of the Well. Unless and until, the blasted stones are removed, the process of deepening of the Well is not complete. Clause (XL) to Schedule II will includes into its fold all the works relating to deepening of the Well and it will also include the work done by the deceased in this case. In such view of the matter, the finding of the Commissioner, on the facts of the present case is correct. 7. This Court is unable to find any good reason to come to a different conclusion on the interpretation of the said provision contrary to the one arrived by the Commissioner. No question of law arises for consideration by this Court. 8. On the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, there is no serious dispute by the appellant and the same is not interfered. 9. Finding no merits, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. PAL To Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of labour ) Coimbatore. + 1 CC To M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate SR NO.72098 CMA No. 4143 of 2008 KSK {CO} TP/22.1.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/