ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard the counsel for the parties.

2. The respondents are the daughter and wife of the deceased-Ramu who was engaged by the appellant to paint the house. While he was doing this work, he unfortunately fell down and died. The claim for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act was denied, but on a writ petition being filed the High Court has allowed the same claim.

3. No reasons have been given by the High Court for coming to the conclusion that this was a case which fell within the domain of the Workmen Compensation Act. There was apparently a contract between the appellant and Ramu whereby Ramu had undertaken the work of painting the house. Whether the action of the appellant by engaging a person in this manner makes him employee or a workman of the appellant was a question to be decided. The case did not fall within the four corners of the said Act and, therefore, the decision of the High Court was incorrect. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court.

Appeal allowed.

***************

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Lakshminarayana Shetty v. Shantha & Anr., 2001(5) Supreme 637 : 2001 ACJ 1561

00020