( 1 ) THOUGH the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claim application filed by the applicant was rejected by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner holding that the injured driver of the Car is not entitled for compensation as he does not fall within the definition of the term 'workman' as defined under Section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ).

( 3 ) BRIEF facts which are essential for the disposal of the case are as under. That the appellant who was working as a Driver of the Ambassador Car bearing registration No. GA-01-A-5762, belonging to Respondent No. 1 met with an accident on 29-06-1999. It is contended that while he was driving the said vehicle, it dashed against a truck bearing registration No. KA 22-A-28. He further contended that the accident occurred while he was returning from Gao to Belagum near Macche Bus Stand. Alleging that he sustained compound fracture and other injuries, the claimant preferred a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner at Belgaum.

( 4 ) THE Insurance Company resisted the claim petition. Although it was admitted by the Insurance Company that the vehicle was covered under a policy of insurance, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner dismissed the claim petition holding that the driver of the car did not fall within the definition of the term 'workman' as defined under Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act. According to the Commissioner, the Ambassador Car was not used as a commercial vehicle at the time when the accident took place nor was it used for the business purpose. Therefore, as per the impugned award the driver engaged in such a vehicle would not fall within the ambit of the definition of the, term 'workman' as defined under Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act.

( 5 ) WE have heard the learned Counsels on both sides. We have carefully perused the pleadings, the evidence and the impugned award. The substantial question of law that arises for our consideration in this Appeal is as to 'whether the appellant/claimant falls within the definition of 'workmans as defined under Section 2 (1) (n) of the workman's Compensation Act, 1923. '

( 6 ) SECTION 2 (1) (n) defines 'workman' to mean 'any person other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business. It is clear from the definition, the substance of which is extracted above, that a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business gets excluded from the purview of the definition. The word 'and' occurring between the expression whose employment is of a casual nature' mid who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business' has to be read conjunctively. Thus, in order to exclude a person from the category of a workman entitled to compensation under the Act, it has to be shown that he is a casual employee and further that he, is not engaged in the trade or business of the employer. In other words, if a person has to be hoisted out of the contours of the definition the casual nature of his engagement must couple with the succeeding postulate in the definition such that his employment should not be for the trade or business of the employer. This being the legal position, the Commissioner appears to have proceeded on the misconception of the legal position.

( 7 ) IT is seen from the facts of this case that the driver engaged was a paid driver not employed as casual worker but on regular basis. Both the conditions mentioned in the definition are to be cumulatively satisfied if the exclusion contemplated is to be made applicable. It is to be stated here that in the instant case, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner