CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises an important question under the Workmen's Compensation Act on which, I confess, I have not found it easy to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

( 2 ) THE appellant, Chillu Kahar, was a workman under the respondents, Messrs. Burn and Company Limited, but in what exact capacity he was employed is not clear. The respondents alleged that he was a hammerman, but the appellant denied that allegation, although subsequently he appears to have admitted it. His positive case, however, is that his duty was to "join iron into the furnace and to take it out on opening the door of the furnace'. ' The respondents' case that he was a hammerman and worked at some distance from the furnace probably means that his duty was to beat heated pieces of iron and steel into shape. It may well have been that the appellant was a hammerman, but he was himself required to throw into the fire and draw out the pieces of iron and steel which he was required to beat up. Unfortunately, there is no clear find- ing on the matter and the learned Commissioner does not seem to have realised the necessity of arriving at a clear finding.

( 3 ) BE that as it may, the appellant's

Click Here to Read the rest of this document