The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act and the retrospective effect of the amendment to the Act.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.05.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Coimbatore, in W.C. No: 132 of 2000 filed by the employer / 1st opposite Party. The appellant is the 1st opposite Party who filed the appeal against the award of a sum of Rs. 44,200/- in favour of the applicant who sustained injuries and suffered disability due to an accident which occurred in the course and arising out of employment at the work spot namely in the house of the 1st opposite party, under the supervision of the 2nd opposite party. The Deputy Commissioner had appraised the evidence and after a full fledged enquiry, came to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs. 44,200/- in favour of the applicant against which the present appeal has been preferred by the 1st opposite Party – the employer.

2. The points for consideration in this appeal are

(1) As to whether the applicant was a workman under the 1st opposite party at the time of the alleged incident and if so, whether the 1st opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the applicant under Workmen Compensation Act ? and

(2) Whether the compensation of Rs.44,200/- as awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Coimbatore, is liable to be set aside or revised ?

3. For convenience sake the status of the parties as before the Workmen Compensation Court is being used in this judgment as it is. The applicant is said to have been engaged in centering work at the house of the 1st opposite party and at the time of carrying out the work, i.e. in the course of and arising out of his employment, he fell down from a height of 10 feet and sustained injuries in such an accident which occurred on 07.04.2000. He was immediately admitted in the hospital belonging to Dr.Vijayaraghavan where he was given First Aid and thereafter, he was taken to Coimbatore Medical College hospital and was admitted as an in-patient where he took treatment for his injuries. The injuries said to have been sustained by the applicant was a multiple fracture in his left hand. He has further claimed that he was affected by disability due to mal-union of the fractured bones and that he had spent much expenditure for taking treatment and, therefore, he claims a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards compensation.

4. The Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation had considered the objection of the 1st opposite party that the applicant was not at all a workmen under him and the objection of the 2nd opposite party that he was not at all a necessary party since he was not connected with any work of the 1st opposite party and had come to a conclusion that the applicant was a workman under the 1st opposite party and that the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident which occurred in the course and arising out of employment and a sum of Rs.44,200/-should have been paid by the 1st opposite party by holding that the applicant had sustained 20% disability due to the injuries.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant / First Opposite Party would submit in his argument that the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation did not consider the entire evidence produced by the 1st opposite party and the objections raised by them but, had come to a wrong conclusion of awarding the compensation to the applicant. He would further submit in his argument that the pay role of the 1st opposite party namely that of the factory, was produced by the 1st opposite party which was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner and if so considered it would disclose that the applicant is not a workman working under him. More over, he would submit that the applicant himself has stated that he was working in the portico centering at the house of the 1st opposite party and, therefore, he is not connected with the factory of the 1st opposite party and thus he is not liable to pay compensation on that score also. The calculation of compensation by the learned Deputy Commissioner was also without any bas