Rajamannar, C.J.- This appeal against the judgment of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., arises under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The respondent filed an application before the Commissioner for workmen’s compensation claiming a compensation of Rs.2,106 on the following allegation, namely, that he was a workman employed by one V.Ramaswami Naidu, a contractor, in the month of November, 1946, and that he received a personal injury by accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment. The cause of the injury was the capsizing of the lorry belonging to the contractor and driven by his driver, when the said lorry was conveying the respondent and his fellow workmen to the workspot. The injury sustained by the respondent was the breaking of his left arm, which resulted eventually in the loss of his left arm. The said Ramaswami Naidu, the employer, died soon after the filing of the application and the reply statement was filed by his three sons as. his legal representatives . They denied that the respondent was a workman within the meaning of that term as defined in the Act, and further denied that the injury was sustained in the course of his employment under their father. The Additional Commissioner for workmen’s compensation made an enquiry and passed an order directing the legal representatives of the employer to pay the respondent compensation in a sum of Rs.2,016. Against this order they filed an appeal to this Court under section 30 of the Act. That appeal was dismissed by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. and this appeal under the Letters Patent is against his judgment.

Learned Counsel for the appellants, the legal representatives of the employer, pressed before us the two main pleas mentioned above. His first contention was that the respondent was not a workman. In so far as it is material for this appeal, the definition of ‘workman’ in section 2(1)(n) of the Act is as follows:

"Workman means any 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) who is..... employed.... on monthly wages not exceeding rupees four hundred, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II."

Schedule II contains a list of persons, who are included in the definition of workmen. Among them are persons, who are "employed in the construction, repair, or demolition of any road, bridge or tunnel". Clause (viii)(c).

The following facts appear to be beyond dispute. The appellant’s father was a contractor for the formation of a road. The respondent was employed as a coolie maistri under him on Rs.2-8-0 per day. The respondent brought four coolies with him, and along with them he was engaged in breaking stones. The respondent was being paid a lump sum of money every fortnight. He was a regular and continuous worker and not a causal labourer. On these facts, the Commissioner was right in holding that the respondent was a workmen within the meaning of the Act. Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., was also of the same view.

The next contention certainly requires greater consideration. The facts relevant for this are those set out by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.:

"The appellants have been contractors for the formation of roads under the Government in the district of Coimbatore. The workspot is somewhere near the village called Siruvani but the workmen were being transported from another village which was nearly seven miles away from the workspot. Every day a lorry of the appellants used to go to the village, where the workmen were coming from, take them in the lorry and drop them at the workspot and in the evening after the work was over, the lorry would carry the workmen back to the village."

It was on one such trip from the village to the workspot that the lorry capsized and the respondent suffered the injury. The following statements of the respondent in his deposition may be taken as beyond dispute:-

"The workspot was 7 miles from Semmattu. We used to go by the contractor’s l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document