This appeal under the Workmen’s Compensation Act raises for determination an interesting point which does not appear to have been specifically decided in any reported case. The appellant is one Vinayaka Mudaliar who claims to be by vocation a printer. He engaged one Munuswami a cooly, as a mason along with another Munuswami P.W. 2 to construct a house without engaging the services of any contractor. The former Munuswami died on 18th December, 1948, as a result of being engulfed in earth. His widowed mother filed an application, it would appear on nth April, 1950, for compensation, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Commissioner awarded her Rs. 2,400 under Schedule IV negativing the contention of the employer that the deceased was not at the time of the accident a workman within the meaning of section 2(1)(n) of the Act.

2. According to P.W. 2 he and the deceased Munuswami were each paid Rs. 3 a day by the appellant who used to build houses and let them on rent. They had constructed or were constructing three houses for him. This has not been specifically denied in the witness box by Vinayaka Mudaliar, who took the position that the deceased Munuswami was employed by