Facts in brief are that Amar Singh @ Amrit Singh husband of claimant respondent No.1 and father of claimant-respondent No.2 to 4 was engaged in the work of repairing of electric motor and its fittings and he used to earn Rs. 150/- per day. He used to spend 2/3rd of his income on the claimants. Non-applicants-appellants engaged him in repairing work of the pump installed in 60 ft. deep well situated in their residential premises. While performing it, he was injured and ultimately died during the course of employment. A sum of Rs. 4 lacs was prayed for as compensation under section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Non-applicants-appellant in their reply stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Amar Singh himself. He was taken out of the well by the appellant No.3 and was taken to Nagpur for medical treatment. He was an ordinary labour and not a skilled labour. They also refuted his daily income at the rate of Rs. 150/-. It is stated in the reply that the appellant No. 3 alone engaged Amar Singh @ Amrit Singh for the said work and the charges were settled at Rs. 50/- only. Appellant No.1 and 2 had no concern with the engagement of Amar Singh for the said purpose and they were not his employers It is contended in the reply that the application is not tenable and the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation.

Learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Chhindwara after recording the evidence allowed the application and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,94,640/- towards compensation with interest @ 12%.

Appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is tenable only on substantial question of law. After perusal of the record of the case including the memo of appeal, following two substantial questions of law are found to be involved:

(1) Whether the deceased Amar Singh @ Amrit Singh was a workman within the definition of section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?

(2) Whether all the appellants are liable to pay compensation under the provisions of the said Act?

After considering the submissions, I am of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated herein below.

First submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased Amar Singh @ Amrit Singh was not a workman within the meaning of definition contained in section 2 (I) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923. She stated that he was a casual worker and the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act could not have awarded compensation without raising an issue on this point and further without deciding this issue. Learned counsel relied upon the apex Court decision in Lakshminarayana Shetty v. Shantha and another reported as 2003 SCC (L & S) 1234. It is submitted that Amar Singh @ Amrit Singh was engaged merely by appellant No.3 and the other appellants cannot be made liable without giving a finding that whether he was a workman and whether the appellant No. 1 and 2 were his employers. In the said case there seems to be a denial that the person engaged for painting work was not a workman. In the light of the said plea. Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India has held that without deciding this crucial question. no compensation could be awarded.

On perusal of the reply submitted on behalf of the non-applicants appellants, it is seen that in their joint reply they have admitted the engagement of Amar Singh @ Amrit Singh for the work of motor repairing. They have merely stated that he was not a skilled labour. In paragraph-3 of the reply, it is admitted that the appellant No.3 had engaged Amar Singh @ Amrit Singh for taking out the motor from the well to repair it. It is nowhere stated in the reply that Amar Singh @ Amrit was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (1) (n) of the said Act and the claimants are not entitled for the compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. In paragraph-II of the reply, it is state