RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS MA^;' 's- °~ . C< ^7 LJ" /- LNTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR.fC.G.I ' M. A. (C) No. / 3 .^ /2009 ni»:!-;ftns'M9 Appellant Nemi Chand Nahar, S/o Late Chunni Lal Non-Applicant Nahar Aged'about 72 years, Director, ^o.'^--' Pradhan M.anfri Gram Sadak Yojna, f2^:i'-^f'\y^l~~~ R/o Janakvila 1, Malviya Nagar, Durg ^^^^ _^ 1) Fetkan Bai W/o Late Shri Mansharam,.<t( ^'ojea'rt R/o Village-Singhori, Post-Gorakhpur, Tahsil & District-Kabirdham (C.G.) 2) The Executive Engineer, Pradhan Manfri Gram Sadak Yojana, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Miscellaneous ApDeal under Section 30 of the Workmen ComDensation Act ^ !h!:^.';.?.^^^^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.IW.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Appellant Non-applicant Respondents/ Applicants M.A. M No. 1358/2009 Nemi Chand Nahar Vs Fetkan Bai and another Present: Mr. SC Verma, counsel for the appellant/employer. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.l/claimant. Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondent No.2. ORDER (Orall (23rd September, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J; 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/employer against the award dated 17 December, 2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensatipn, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (in short "the Commissioner") in Case No. 2/WC Act/2008(Fatal) insofar as it relates to fastening of liability to pay compensation to the claimant on the appellant/employer of the deceased workman. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Kuntibai, daughter of respondent No.1 was in the employment of the appellant in connection with the construction work under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, which was being carried out by the appellant as per the instructions of respondent No.2 on contract basis. She was being.paid Rs.2650/- per month as a labour by the appellant. On the fateful day i.e. 29.4.2004, Kuntibai along with other labourers was laying muroom on the road, that all of a sudden, at about 3.30 pm, there was thunderstorm and the labourers stopped the work. However, the appellant directed the labourers to continue the work and therefore, Kuntibai and other labourers continued the work of laying muroom on the road. At that time, on account of fall of lightning and .^^s. gi^ 2 Qiv^sm^ fi 1 1 w«iesfls-^ f •y j '%». ^3pe^/ t^--%s^ thunderstorm, Kuntibai got injured and while making arrangement for taking her to hospital for treatment, she died on the spot. 3. At the time of accident, deceased Kuntibai was 1 7 years and was employed under the appellant and respondent No.2, therefore, they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,01,424/- to the legal heir/dependent of the deceased. With these averments, the claimant, who is mother ofthe deceased, being her legal heirfiled a claim petition under Section 1 O of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner for a total compensation of Rs.3,01,424/- against the death of Kuntibai under various heads. 4. Learned Commissioner, after close scrutiny of the evidence, oral and documentary, led by the parties, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,01,424/- by fastening the liability upon the appellanVemployer to satisfy the award. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the lower court record (LCR) as well as the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/employer has submitted that the casual labourers do not fall within the definition of "workman". He has relief upon the judgment in the matters of Om Prakash Batish Vs. Ranjit alias Ranbir Kaur and others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 212. 7. In the matters of Om Prakash Batish (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that in 2000 before the definition of workman, as it stood in Section 2(1 )(n) ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, was - "workman" means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer'strade or business). The words, which are written in bracket, have been omitted by the Act 46 of 2000. Therefore, the condition of employment otherwise than of a casual nature, has been om'rtted and the workman engaged on casual basis will also be included in the definition of workman. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/eriiployer in this regard is not sustainable in view of theomission by the Act 46 of 2000 as in the present case, the accident took place on 29.4.2004. 3 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the delay of about four years was condoned by the Commissioner without any reason. 9. However, the reasons were assigned in the application for condonation of delay that the claimant was a poor person and had paucity of funds as well as she is an illiterate person having no knowledge about the limitation. The FIR was lodged promptly and as per the FIR, the deceased was working and engaged in the road construction and the employer was the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegation made in the claim petition showing the deceased as workman under the employment of the appellant is an afterthought. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the delay has rightly been condoned by the Commissioner. The legitimate and just claim should not be denied to the claimants, particularly when due to paucity of funds and being an illiterate person, they could not approach the appropriate forum within time. lO.However, we have also seen that instead of 12% interest as provided in Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Commissioner has granted interest only @ 10% p.a. Since there is no appeal on behalf of the claimant before us, we are not considering the question ofenhancement of rate of interest. 11.1n view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. No orderas to costs. G.Minhajjudin Sd/- Judge I.M.Quddussi Judge r: Yl fv