JUDGMENT

B. P. DAS, J. — This appeal under Section 30 of the Work¬men’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is at the instance of the insurer challenging the award passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Rourkela (in short, ‘the W.C. Commission¬er).

2. The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the deceased being engaged for one day to drive the vehicle of the owner can be construed to be a workman under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are follows :

Respondent No.2 was the claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation claiming compensation for the death of her husband namely Bisen alias Biswanath Mahanta, who died in a motor vehicular accident. The case of the claimant before the W.C. Commissioner was that her husband was employed as a driver by present respondent No.1, Mohan Kumar Sahoo of Naranpur, in the district of Keonjhar. On 27.12.1993 he received personal injury due to an accident arising out of and in course of his employment and while he was being treated in the Government Hospital, Keonj¬har succumbed to the injury on 4.1.1994. The claimant claimed for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The owner of the vehicle filed his written statement disclosing therein that the deceased Bisen alias Biswanath Mahanta was employed by him in his Bus bearing registration No. ORJ-7401 only for a day, i.e., 27.12.1992 in absence of his regular driver and he was paid Rs. 70/- for that day as wages including food charges. On 27.12.1992 the said bus met with an accident being collided with a truck, ultimately resulting in the death of the deceased driver. There was no factual dispute that the vehicle was validly insured with the present appellant and the date of accident was covered under a valid insurance policy. The insurer also contested the proceeding before the W.C. Commissioner by filing written statement admit¬ting the factum of valid insurance of the vehicle in question disclosing the policy number, but it denied to accept the liabil¬ity on several grounds, one of which being that it is not liable to indemnify the compensation as it had no knowledge about the employment of the deceased, his age, wages and more specifically there was absence of master and servant relationship between the insured and the deceased.

4. The W.C. Commissioner framed as many as three issues. The issue with which we are concerned is whether the deceased was a casual workman not entitled to compensation?

5. While answering the aforesaid issue, the W.C. Commis¬sioner held that whether a workman is casual or regular depends upon the nature of job for which he is engaged and in this par¬ticular case, the job of the driver is regular one so far the trade or business of the employer is concerned.

6. According to the W.C. Commissioner, the very nature of the job of driver in this case is of regular or permanent type and the workman engaged therein irrespective of his tenure of employment is a regular workman. Reason as stated by the W.C. Commissioner is that the owner cannot manage the vehicle without a driver. Basing upon the aforesaid reasoning, the W.C. Commis¬sioner held that the deceased was not a casual workman and for his death due to an accident arising out of and in course of his employment, his dependants are entitled to compensation.

7. The fact of engagement of the deceased as a driver to drive the vehicle of the owner is not disputed, so also the fact that he was engaged for a day only.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant draws my attention to the provision of Section 2(n) of the W.C. Act, which defines ‘workman’ as follows :

Section 2(1)(n) runs as follows :

“(n) 'workman’ means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer’s trade or business) who is-

(i) a railway servant as defined in Section 3 of the In