A person employed to deepen a well on an agricultural property is a workman within the meaning of S. 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as the employment is not of a casual nature and is for the purpose of the employer's trade or business.

JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal preferred against the order made by the Court of Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Madras, in W.C.C. No. 147 of 1950.

2. The facts are : The appellant Sitharama Reddiar is a petty ryot of North Arcot District owning 4 acres of dry lands. There was a small well in his field. On account of the failure of monsoon for 4 years in succession, the well had got dried up. Therefore, he deepened it with a band of diggers of whom the respondent Ayyaswami Goundar was one. The digging operations started in February 1948. The appellant or his father supervised the work.

They paid the diggers advance at 12 annas plus 1½ measures of rice every day and supplied them with gun powder for dynamiting the rocks. On 26-3-1949 when dynamite was urged for digging operations it resulted in explosion. The respondent was injured. He was taken to the hospital and his right arm was amputated upto his elbow and he lost three fingers in his left hand.

Thereupon this respondent preferred an application before the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation which was summarily rejected on the ground that the respondent was not a workman as defined in S. 2(1)(n), Workmens Compensation Act. There was an appeal to the High Court and Mack, J. in A.A.O. No. 642 of 1950 set aside the order and remanded it for fresh disposal according to law.

3. The learned Commissioner who heard this remanded application came to the conclusion that the respondent was a workman as defined in S. 2(1)(n) of the Act and awarded him the specified compensation of Rs. 1077-4-10. The defeated employer appeals.

4. The short point for determination is whether the respondent is a person who has to be excluded from the definition of the expression "workman" under Sub-S. (1), Cl. (n), S. 2, Workmens Compensation Act, 8 of 1923.

5. In order that a person may be excluded from the definition of the expression "workman", the following conditions must concur :

(a) his employment must have been of a casual nature; and

(b) He must have been employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employers trade or business.

A person to be excluded from the definition of "workman" as defined in this clause must not only be one "whose employment is of a casual mature" but also one "who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employers trade or business. Both these qualifications must be satisfied in order to exclude a person from the category of Workman under the Act Periyakkal v. Agent, S.I. Rly. Co. Ltd., Trichinopoly, AIR 1935 Mad 721 (A); - Vinayaka Mudaliar v. Mundala Pottiamma, AIR 1953 Mad 432 (B); - Bachia Mistri v. Shanti, AIR 1946 All 473 (C); - Arumugham v. Nagammal. AIR 1949 Mad 462 (D). See also the H. of L. decision - Manton v. Cantwell, (1920) AC 781 (E).

Thus, if a man is employed for the purpose of a trade or business, the employer is liable even if the employment is of a casual nature - Abdul Hussain v. Secy. of State, AIR 1933 Rang 244 (F); - K.A.K. Master v. Ramdhari, AIR 1936 Rang 493 (G).

6. The question whether the employment of a workman is of a casual nature depends on the evidence as to the nature of the employment. The onus in such cases would be on the employer to prove the condition which is necessary for the purpose of excluding a person from the category of a workman, and it has to be shown that the workmans employment was of a casual nature : - Ebrahim Haji Jusab v. Jainibi Anuddin. AIR 1933 Bom 270 (H); - Stacker v. Wortham, (1919) 1 KB 499 (I).

The word casual as used in this Act is not a term of precision, and is incapable of being exactly defined. It is used here not as a term of precision but as a colloquial term : - Knight v. Bucknill, (1913) 57 Sol Jo 245 (J). It seems to imply something midway between the regular employment of a workman and an engagement for a single day : See Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 34, Para. 1144. Whether an employment is of a casual nature or not is a question of fact depending on the ci