Key Points:- The appellant argues that a casual employee hired for repairing a residential building is not a "workman" under Section 2(n) of the Act; the court analyzes the definition and Schedule II applicability. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court notes that entering evidence interpretation is limited in an appeal; a substantial question of law is the focus for Section 30 appeals. (!) (!) - The Act’s definition of "workman" excludes casual employment and requires connection to the employer’s trade or business; in this case, the work was for a limited period to repair a residential house, not satisfying the statutory criteria. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The incident involved an accident connected to high-tension wires, with evidence presented regarding whether Ram Lal was a workman; the court discusses the credibility and admissibility of dying declarations and police statements within the Workmen’s Compensation framework. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment ultimately sets aside the impugned order, holding that the deceased was not a workman under the Act at the relevant time, and the appeal is allowed. (!)

How to determine whether a casual employee engaged for a limited period to carry out repair work in a residential building is a "workman" under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?What is the interpretation of the term "workman" under Section 2(n) of the Act as it stood at the date of the incident, and does Schedule II apply to such cases?What are the grounds on which an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act lies to the High Court and how should substantial questions of law be identified?