: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.854 OF 1994 1. Vijaya Ramesh Barve, 2. Tejaswini Ramesh Barve, 3. Leena Ramesh Barve, All R/a. Plot No.128-129, Flat No.11, Nikhil Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Tulshibagwale Colony, Sahakar Nagar, Pune ... Appellants Versus 1. Bank of Maharashtra, Lokmangal 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune 2. The Commissioner of Workmen s Compensation, Golibar Maidan, Shankersheth Road, Pune ... Respondents None for the Appellants. Mr. A.G. Damle i/b. Mr. V.P. Shintre for Respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 30 th JULY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The Appeal has been preferred by the wife of the deceased Ramesh Dattatraya Barve who was : 2 : employed as a Machine Operator on the Machine Accounting System in the respondent-Bank. The deceased Ramesh joined service on 16th June, 1970. He died on 7th September, 1988. According to the applicants, i.e. the appellants herein, the deceased was posted in the Reconciliation Department and he died as a result of a heart attack as a consequence of the stressful work performed by him. The appellants claimed an amount of Rs.2,65,956.83 as compensation from the respondent-Bank. Since the amount was not paid, the appellants preferred an application under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923, (for short the said Act ), being Application W.C. No.164 of 1990. 2. The respondent-Bank opposed the claim by contending that it was not covered by the said Act. It was also contended that the employee was not a workman governed by the said Act and therefore the claim was not maintainable. The respondent-Bank contended that since the claim : 3 : was made for a workman who was working in the clerical capacity, the application was not maintainable. 3. The Commissioner framed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the application and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to decide the claim. 4. The Commissioner on the basis of evidence and documents produced held that the application was not maintainable as the deceased was not a workman within the ambit of Section 2(1)(n) of the said Act. 5. Section 2(1)(n) of the said Act reads as under : workman means any person who is - (i) a railway servant as defined in [clause (34) of Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)], not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is : 4 : specified in Schedule II, or [(i-a)(a)a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship, (b)a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft, (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connec- tion with a motor vehicle, (d)a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India, or] (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 : 5 : workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them. 6. Thus, under clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(n) of the said Act, if a person is employed in a capacity specified in Schedule II, he would be covered by the said Act. On a perusal of Schedule II which includes the list of persons who, subject to the provisions of Section 2(1) (n) of the said Act, are included in the definition of workman does not include workmen who are employed in a clerical grade. In fact, almost all the entries indicate that a workman working in a clerical capacity is specifically excluded from the definition of workman . Thus, when admittedly the deceased was working in a clerical capacity, albeit as a Machine operator, he would not be entitled to compensation under the said Act. 7. The First Appeal is dismissed. .......