A casual worker engaged in non-trade tasks does not qualify as a 'workman' under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, lacking an employer-employee relationship.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this FAO, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 27.12.2011, passed by learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in WCA No.12 of 2011, titled Sh. Gurdev Singh Vs. Sh. Hemant Kumar Gupta and others, in terms whereof the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. This appeal was admitted on 18.06.2024 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the findings returned by learned Commissioner that the claimant was not an employee of the respondents are perverse findings?”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under:-

The case of the claimant before the learned Commissioner was that he was engaged as a Beldar by the HPSEB for the purpose of plastering work of the first floor of the house of respondent No.1 with effect from 02.04.2003 (wrongly mentioned in the claim petition as 12.04.2003). On 05.04.2003 at around 1:00 pm, the claimant received injuries on his body due to electrical burn from HT wire, passing above the roof of the house of respondent No.1. He was badly burned. At the time of incident, his daily wages were Rs. 100/- per day. He was moved to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, after the incident, where he remained admitted till 17.04.2003. He spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- on his treatment. His treatment was still under way when the case was filed. After the accident, the claimant was advised bed rest for one year and the injuries received had affected his eyesight and memory also. Accordingly, he prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-

3. The respondents denied the case of the petitioner by taking the stand that he was never engaged by HPSEB in any capacity and there was no relationship of employer and workman between HPSEB and the claimant. Respondents No.2 to 4 categorically denied that the claimant was engaged by the said respondents to do any work in the house of respondent No. 1, as alleged in the claim petition.

4. Respondent No. 1, Hemant Kumar Gupta denied the case of the claimant in totality. He denied that the claimant was ever engaged as a Beldar or he was performing any plastering work at his house, as alleged or any incident as alleged took place, in the course of the performance of the work by the claimant at his house.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Commissioner framed the following issues on 08.11.2004:-

“1. Whether the petitioner was the workman/employee of the respondent? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries during the course of employment? OPP

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation from whom and what amount?OPP

4. Whether the petitioner was injured during the course of the employment with respondent?OPP

5. Relief.”

6. On the strength of the evidence, which was led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under:-

“Issue No. 1 :

No. Issue No. 2 :

No. Issue No. 3 :

No.Issue No. 4 :

No. Relief : The petition is dismissed as per operative part of the judgment.”

7. Learned Commissioner dismissed the claim petition by holding that the definition of ‘workman’ in terms of Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act did not include the petitioner, as at the most, he was engaged as a casual worker and further the claimant had not produced any evidence to demonstrate that he was employed for the purpose of employer's trade or business. While arriving at the said finding learned Commissioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme of India in C