( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 (1) (a) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 by the dependants of deceased Babulal who at all material times, was employed in the services of the Public Works Department (Building and Works ). Narsimhapur.

( 2. ) IT is common ground that the deceased Babulal was employed as a chowkidar in the office of Public Works Department. On the night of 12th April, 1968, a burglary chanced to take place in the office in which Babulal was murdered by the miscreants. Babulal was admittedly on duty on the night in question and had been enjoined to look after the premises which was being used as office by the respondents.

( 3. ) IT is not disputed now, and which fact has been fully proved by the evidence on record, that at the time of the murder, deceased Babulal was drawing Rs. 80 per month as wages. The appellants who are the dependants of deceased Babulal claim a sum of Rs. 6,000 as compensation as according to them, deceased Babulal was a workman and had lost his life in an accident in course of his duties. They also claim Rs. 3,000 as penalty under Section 4a (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 and interest at the rate of Rs. 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. The respondents deny that the deceased Babulal was a workman on various grounds and one of them being that he was borne on contingent establishment.

( 4. ) THE Labour Court found that the deceased Babulals employment was not casual. It appears from the evidence of Khersingh (D. W. 1) who was the overseer at Narsimhapur that deceased Babulal was employed as the chowkidar and was drawing monthly salary. In addition to the salary of Rs. 73 he was also drawing Rs. 5 as labour charges for bringing water and Rs. 2 as dusting allowance. The assertion that he was borne on contingent establishment would not make the employment as casual. It appears from the evidence that he had been in the service for the last 10 years though he was originally employed for construction of road. From the evidence of his long service record, it cannot be said that he was a casual labourer and we hold so. The Labour Court, however, was of the view that the deceased Babulal was not a workman within the definition of Section 2 (1) (n) read with Clause (viii) (c) of Schedule II of the Workmens Compensation Act. It is this finding that is challenged before us. As to the question of quantum to which the appellants would be entitled, there is no dispute that it would be Rs. 6,000 in accordance with the table provided in Schedule IV of the Act.

( 5. ) THE question that falls to be considered is : Was the deceased a workman ? Sub-section (n) of Section 2 (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act defines "workman" as below: 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 employers trade or business) who is- (i ). . . (ii) employed. . . on monthly wages not exceeding five hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union. . . ; and any reference to a workman who has been injured, shall where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them. (2) The exercise and performance of the powers and duties of a local authority or of any department acting on behalf of the Government shall, for the purposes of this Act, unless a contrary intention appears, be deemed to be the trade or business of such authority or department. The definition has, therefore, to be read along with Schedule II and the relevant item that concerns us is Entry No. (viii) of Schedule II which reads as under: The following persons are workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (n) and subject to the