( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The admitted facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant was working as revenue Inspector under the Suratgarh municipality on May 7, 1998 while he was driving the vehicle of Municipality. On that day, at about 1 a. m. tyre of the jeep burst and an accident took place, as a result of which the appellant suffered severe injury, which resulted in amputation of his right leg.

( 2 ) INFORMATION of the accident was given to the employer on May 7, 1998 and notice under the Workmen Compensation Act was : given to the Municipality on March 3, 1999, however, no compensation was paid under the aforesaid Act. He, therefore, lodged a claim before the Commissioner, Workmen compensation, Sriganganagar. The vehicle was; insured with the National Insurance Company. Since the Municipal Board did not appear to contest after notice, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. The Insurance Company contested the claim inter alia on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by the claimant. He was not holding a valid licence and also that since he was a revenue Inspector and not a paid driver, therefore, Insurance cover will not cover the risk of the Revenue Inspector driving any vehicle. . It also stated that the claim has been filed collusively with the Municipal Board to recover the money from the insurance company because the vehicle was insured with it.

( 3 ) THE claimant produced before the commissioner, Workmen Compensation a document stated to be autorising him to drive a vehicle and, therefore, it was stated that he was duly engaged as driver at the time he was driving the vehicle when accident was caused. The Commissioner considering that the claimant was authorised by the Municipal board to drive the vehicle and that he holds a valid driving licence, awarded the claim of Rs. 1,60,641/- with interest of Rs. 35,375/-totalling Rs. 1,96,016/ -.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid order, the national Insurance Company preferred Appeal being S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 85/2001. The learned single judge noticed that the claim petition clearly stated that the claimant was employed as revenue Inspector. Employment of Revenue inspector is distinct and different from that of the employment of a driver. A driver is a workman and is subordinate to higher authorities of municipal Board, including claimant. Services of an employed driver comes within the definition of workman. A Revenue Inspector is in a supervisory position. Those who are in supervisory positions have not been extended he benefit of labour laws in this country. Therefore, the learned single Judge held that the claim under the Workman compensation was not maintainable at the instance of the claimant. In view thereof, the order of the commissioner, Workmen Compensation was set aside. Hence this appeal.

( 5 ) THE only contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant was that in terms of Section 2 of the Workmen compensation Act, 1923, a workman has been defined as under:

"2. 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 specified in Schedule II, or (ia) (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 connection 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 cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document