S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The true import of the definition of a workman in S.2(1)(n) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 and in particular the impact of the exclusionary clause therein -- "other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employers trade or business" - was the ticklish question which necessitated this reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue was the correctness of the earlier view of the Division Bench in 1973 Pat LJR 287 (Jasimuddin V/s. Mst. Hajiza Bibi).

2. The facts lie in a narrow compass and, indeed, in the context of the proviso to S.30(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) providing that no appeal shall lie against an order unless a substantial question of law is involved therein, they pale into relative insignificance. Nevertheless the basic terrafirmd of the matrix thereof giving rise to the issue aforesaid, has to be necessarily noticed albeit with brevity. The appellant Most. Motijhari Devi claims to be the wife of late Rameshwar Bind and had preferred the application for compensation in her alleged capacity of being his sole legal