The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'workman' under the Workmen Compensation Act and its application to the nature of the deceased's duties.

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) ADMITTEDLY, one Leslies Brian Mendies was employed as Food/mess Sergeant in the school mess of Bishop West Scott situated at socko, Khunti, within Ranchi District on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 1,700 including the food allowance. He was aged about 33 years on 13. 9. 1996, when he met with an accident. While coming down from the second floor, he fell down from the stairs, sustained serious injuries and died in the hospital on the next day, i. e. , on 14. 9. 1996. His parents filed W. C. Case No. 5 of 1988, under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for compensation.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the claimants, their deceased son was working as Mess Sergeant in the school. His duty was from 8 a. m. to 12 noon in the day and from 6 p. m. to 10 p. m. in the night. On 13. 9. 1996 at about 9 p. m. he received personal injury by accident arising out of and in course of his employment, while he was coming down from the top of the second floor of the building for serving food to the members of the staff and others. As there was no railing in the stairs, he fell down on the pucca ground from the height of at least 25 ft. and received head and chest injuries. He was taken to Nagarmal Seva Sadan hospital, where he died on 14. 9. 1996. His parents were fully dependent on his earnings and hence they were entitled to get compensation under the provisions of the act.

( 3 ) THE Secretary and Principal of the school filed rejoinder and contested the claim case, inter alia, on the ground that the deceased did not come within the purview of the term workman as defined under the Act. He did not fall under any of the classifications listed under Schedule ii of the Act and it was not an accident as construed under section 3 of the Act. It did not arise out of or in course of employment of the deceased. He was absent from duty from 10. 9. 1996 onwards and at the time of accident he was under the influence of drinks or liquor to which he was addicted. He used to drink almost at all hours. His salary was Rs. 1,347 per month. His duty hours were up to 7. 30 p. m. After all the children of the hostel of the school finish their dinner, the Mess Sergeant had no business to be there in the hostel or the mess in connection of his duty at 9 p. m. The building in question was constructed in the year 1992 and right from that time all the stairs had railings. At about 10 oclock in the night there was no question of the deceased coming down from the 2nd floor to serve food to the members of the staff after the dinner was completed earlier. As he was intoxicated and fully drunk was not able to control himself and as such fell down from the 2nd floor. Hence, there was absolutely no liability on the school management to pay any amount of compensation to his dependants under the Act.

( 4 ) THE claimants examined two witnesses, one of them, AW 1, being father of the deceased, claimed to have got information about the accident on 14. 9. 1996 in the morning hours. He was not aware whether his son was absent from duty from 10. 9. 1996 till the date of accident. He was no doubt residing on the 2nd floor, but the reason for his coming down at 9 p. m. was not known to him.

( 5 ) AW 2 (Lt. Gen. Maya Gas) stated that family of the deceased was known to him. He was not aware of the concern, where the deceased was employed. AW 1 had told him that his son was sending money to him, but he was not aware of the exact amount. According to him, father of the deceased was a retired employee of the air Force. He was not aware whether the claimants were dependent on the deceased.

( 6 ) ON behalf of school management, chand Kumar Rajan Lakra, its accountant was examined as OPW 1, who deposed that duty of the deceased was to get the food prepared for the school children through helpers and to maintain accounts of the kitchen.

( 7 ) OPW 2 was an office staff of the school. According to him the duty o