Order

Arijit Pasayat, J.—These two appeals relate to a claim made by Ramu Pasi (respondent No. 2) under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘the Act’). Adjudicating the claim made by the said Ramu Pasi claiming compensation under the Act for an alleged injury suffered on 11.06.1986, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad (in short ‘the Labour Court’) awarded compensation of Rs. 4001/-. The injury, on the left ring finger, according to the claimant was suffered when he was working in the factory of the appellant. An appeal was preferred before the Patna High Court under Section 30 of the Act taking the stand that Ramu Pasi is not covered by the expression ‘workman’, as defined in Section 2(n) of the Act and, therefore, his claim petition before the Labour Court was not maintainable. Since, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the applicant Ramu Pasi was engaged as a casual worker, it should not have entertained the claim petition. Further, the employee was not employed for the purposes of the employer’s trade and business. Learned Single Judge was of the view that the said question was really of an academic interest because the quantum awarded was very small. A L