1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/claimant under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity, the 'Act') against the award dated 22.6.2005 in COC No.50/B/W.C.Act/99(F), passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act-cum-Labour Court No.1, Gwalior. The claim case was filed by the appellant/claimant for grant of compensation on account of accidental death of his son Inder Singh during the course of employment under respondent S.G. Motors, Jhansi Road, Gwalior.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased-Inder Singh was working as a clerk in S.G. Motors, Jhansi Road, Gwalior in the year 1997. On

10/11.6.1997 Inder Singh died while on duty. On this date, he fell down in the well and had lost his life.

3. The appellant/claimant gave a notice to the respondent for payment of compensation on account of accidental death of his son Inder Singh. When the compensation amount was not paid to him, he filed a claim case in the Court of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act (Labour Court No.1), Gwalior, in the year 1999. The respondent contested the case on the ground that the deceased was not a workman as defined under section 2(1)(n) of Schedule II of the Act as well as the death of the son of the appellant by jumping into the well was not accident but suicide and there was no relation between employment and cause of death.

4. After hearing both the parties, the application filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act for the reason that the death of Inder Singh had occurred while the deceased was working as a Clerk. Therefore, he is not covered in the definition of the 'Workman' under section 2(1)(n) of the Act. Aggrieved by dismissal of the claim application by the Commissioner, Gwalior, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant under section 30 of the Act.

5. This appeal involves two questions for determination. Firstly, whether the death of Inder Singh was caused during the course of employment and, secondly, whether deceased Inder Singh is a 'workman' within the ambit of the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 and if so, whether the claimant is entitled to recover any compensation ?

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that as the inquest report clearly indicates that deceased Inder Singh was found floating in the well situated in the premises of the respondent, his death was due to the accident, which arose during the course of employment. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation for the death of Inder Singh.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the Commissioner and contended that nowhere in the claim petition it is stated that the death was due to the accident. As per the inquest report, Inder Singh committed suicide by jumping into the well. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the appellant/claimant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ram Prasad and another [2001 ACJ 647], wherein the Hon'ble apex Court has observed as under :-

“The accident, it is stated, took place on account of lightning. The contention put forth on behalf of the appellant is that the mishap of death of Smt. Gita due to lightning is an act of God and, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. This contention has been rejected not only by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation but also by the learned Single Judge in appeal and thereafter by a Division Bench in a further appeal. The view taken is that the concept of the liability under the Act is wide enough to cover a case of this nature inasmuch as death had taken place arising as a result of accident in the course of employment. It is, no doubt true that accident must have a causal connection with the employment and arise out of it. If the workman is injured as a result of