JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Instant appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923, lays challenge to order dated 20.10.2012, passed by learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Court No. 1, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. whereby learned court below while allowing the claim petition having been filed by petitioners/respondents herein (hereinafter to be called as “petitioners”) under Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘Act’) held them entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,54,160/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, i.e. Rs. 1,52,496/- (total Rs. 4,06,656/-) along with further interest @ 12% per annum, in case aforesaid award amount is not deposited within a period of two months.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioners filed a petition under Section 4 of the Act, claiming therein compensation on account of death of one Sh. Kuldeep Singh being his legal representatives and dependents. Petitioners claimed before the court below that deceased Kuldeep Singh was engaged/employed by the respondent/appellant herein (hereinafter to be called as “respondent”) for construction of his house in the year 2007 on daily wages of Rs. 100/- per day and on 12.09.2007, above-named deceased Kuldeep Singh buried under the debris of katcha wall of the house of the respondent. Though, aforesaid person was taken to hospital, but he was declared brought dead. Since deceased Kuldeep Singh was the sole bread earner of the family, the petitioners approached the Court below, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lac. The respondent by way of filing reply refuted the aforesaid claim and claimed that he had not employed late Kuldeep Singh on 12.09.2007 for digging work, as alleged. He also denied that deceased Kuldeep Singh died after being buried under the debris of the katcha wall. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, following issues were framed on 16.08.2010:

(i) Whether the deceased Kuldip Singh was a workman with the respondent?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as alleged?

3. Subsequently, learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation vide award dated 20.10.2012, held petitioners entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,54,160/- along with interest @ 12% per annum, i.e. Rs. 1,52,496/- (total Rs. 4,06,656/-) and specifically ordered that in case aforesaid amount is not paid within a period of two months, the respondent shall be further liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the account of compensation as well as interest calculated thereupon. In the aforesaid background, the respondent has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to dismiss the claim of the petitioners after setting aside the award dated 20.10.2021 impugned in the instant proceedings.

4. Aforesaid appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether learned Commissioner has misconstrued and misinterpreted the pleadings and evidence in returning the findings that Kuldip Singh was a workman under the Employee’s Compensation Act?”

5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties, this Court finds that precise grouse of the appellant/respondent is that court below has erred while treating deceased Kuldeep Singh as a workman under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant, vehemently argued that as per definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2 (1)(n) of the Act “workman” would mean “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.” He further argued that as per own case set up by respondents, deceased Kuldeep Singh was engaged on daily wages for doing work of casual nature and as such, he could not be termed as