( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court and Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Rajkot, (commissioner for short, hereinafter) in W. C. (N. F.) Application No. 14 of 1981, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (act for short, hereinafter ). The appellant is the original applicant/ workman and the respondent herein is the original opponent/employer. Therefore, they are hereinafter referred to as workman and employer" for the sake of convenience and brevity.

( 2 ) THE workman claimed compensation of Rs. 16,128. 00 for personal accidental injuries sustained by him when he was attending sugar-cane crushing machine, on 10-2-1981. The workman was earning monthly wages of Rs. 330. 00. On the day of the accident, his right hand was crushed in the said crushing machine, which resulted into the permanent partial disablement to the extent of 60%. The workman contended that he was working with the opponent/employer and he sustained injuries in the course of and out of his employment with the opponent/employer. Despite notice being served, the employer did not pay compensation. Therefore, the workman filed the aforesaid application for compensation.

( 3 ) ). The employer appeared and resisted the application for compensation by filing written statement, at Ex. 9. He, inter alia, contended that the applicant is not a workman as defined under the Act. He admitted the factum of the accident and the resultant injury arising out of the accident on 10-2-1981. He denied that the applicant was his employee. It was pleaded by him that the applicant being a relative of one Bachu Nanji who was his contractor, had unauthorisedly tampered with the crushing machine and, therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation.

( 4 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner was pleased to hold that original applicant is a workman as defined under the Act. It was also found by the learned Commissioner that the workman was earning Rs. 330. 00 per month, at the time of the, unfortunate, accident. The learned commissioner has also held that the workman had sustained permanent pertial disablement to the extent of 60% on account of amputation of right hand which was crushed in the sugar-cane crushing machine. However, the learned Commissioner dismissed the application for compensation under Sec. 3 of the Act on the ground that the applicant was not the workman of the opponent/employer. In other words, it was held that the original opponent, Patel Natha Ramji was not the employer.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for compensation, the original applicant/workman has, now, come up before this Court, challenging its legality and validity, under Sec. 30 of the Act.

( 6 ) IT is contended on behalf of the workman that he is entitled to compensation under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 12 of the Act. The learned commissioner has found that the applicant was a workman on the date of the accident and he was earning Rs. 330. 00 per month. However, the learned Commissioner held that he was not a workman of opponent/ employer-Patel Natha Ramji. This finding of fact is, seriously, challenged.

( 7 ) AFTER having examined the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the learned Commissioner has committed a serious error in holding that the applicant/workman is not entitled to compensation under Sec. 3 of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the opponent/employer had engaged one Bachu Nanji and one Jayanti Soma as his contractors for cutting, collecting and crushing sugar-canes in his field. It is specifically pleaded in the written statement, at Ex. 9, that he had given contract to one Bachu Nanji and one Jayanti Soma for crushing sugar-canes. The learned Commissioner also believed that they were the contractors of the original opponent-Patel N