A person engaged by an employee of a corporation to carry out a task for the corporation is considered a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and is entitled to compensation in case of injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment.

1. -This appeal has been filed by RSRTC against the award dated 4.9.2006 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner Alwar in CAF/18/2003 whereby he allowed the claim filed by the claimants and awarded Rs. 3,38,800/- as compensation with interest to the claimants for the death of Dal chand, driver of RSRTC.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Dalchand was engaged by the employee of the RSRTC namely Bharatbhusan Chaturvedi for carrying the Chasis of Ashok Leyland for carrying the same from Alwar to Jaipur. When the chasis, which was driven by Dalchand, came near Amer, in order to save Neelgay, the chasis overturned and Dalchand received injuries and thereafter taken to SMS Hospital in another Chasis which was driven by Ram Prasad, who has also lodged the FIR. Dalchand died at the SMS Hospital. The remuneration for taking the chasis was only Rs. 400/- which was paid by the employee of the Corporation. The claim petition was filed and the RSRTC denied the contents of the claim petition. Both the parties produced evidence and the Commissioner on the basis of the evidence and the documents allowed the claim petition and awarded the amount of compensation as mentioned above.

4. Mr. Ashok Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC has only raised the argument that the deceased Dal Chand was not employed by RSRTC and hence he was not workman as per the definition of Workmen Compensation Act. The compensation as awarded by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation vide order dated 4.9.2006 is liable to be set aside.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also looked into the award passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner by a detailed award considered all the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and also took into consideration the evidence produced by the claimants and the documents. The award passed is just and proper. The Commissioner Workmen Compensation in its award in relation to issue No.1 which was related to whether the deceased was in the employment of the RSRTC or not held as under :

"izkFkhZ i{k }kjk izLrqr lk{; t; flag] jke izlkn o euksgj yky ?kVuk ds pLeqn~nhu xokg gS rFkk e`rd ds lkFk dk;Z djus okys pkyd gSA ftldh iqf"V muds }kjk lh0vkj0ih0lh0 dh /kkjk 161 esa fn;s x;s c;ku izn'kZ 29] izn'kZ 30 o izn'kZ 31 ls gksrh gSA rFkk izn'kZ 1 Hkh mDr rhuksa O;fDr;ksa dks oDr nq?kZVuk gksuk n'kkZrk gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ i{k ds dFku ij vfo'okl djus dk dksbZ dkj.k izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vizkFkhZ i{k vius bl dFku dks fl) djus esa iw.kZr% foQy jgk gS fd e`rd oDr nq?kZVuk mldk fu;ksftr pkyd ugha gS vr% rudh la[;k 1 fu.khZr dh tkrh gS fd oDr nq?kZVuk e`rd MkypUn vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds pSfllksa dks mlds funsZ'kkuqlkj v'kksdk yhysaM ,e0vkbZ0,0 ls ysdj t;iqj tk jgk Fkk ,oa mlds fu;kstu esa fu;ksftr FkkA e`rd pSfll dk pkyd Fkk ,oa mlds fu;kstu esa fu;ksftr FkkA e`rd pSfll dk pkyd Fkk rFkk mlds ikl esa Hkkjh okgu pykus dk ykbZlsal izn'kZ 17 Fkk deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e 1923 dh /kkjk 2 ,y (lh) vuqlkj pkyd deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gSA e`rd Hkh pSfll dk pkyd Fkk vr% rudy la[;k 1 fu.khZr dh tkrh gS fd e`rd Mkypan vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds fu;kstu esa oDr nq?kZVuk fu;ksftr deZdkj FkkA"

6. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Commissioner on the statements of the claimants witnesses and the documents Ex. 29 to 31, which are statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the other drivers. The deceased was admittedly engaged by the employee of the RSRTC for taking the Chasis of the corporation from Alwar to Jaipur. There is no illegality in the findings arrived at by the Commisioner. The claimants in these circumstances entitled for compensation from the RSRTC. The award is just and proper and the interest was rightly awarded. The appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The stay order dated 19