JUDGMENT
Dalvi Roshan, J.
1. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Ex-Officio Commissioner, Workman’s Compensation, Raigad-Alibag on 4.10.1995, granting compensation of Rs. 1,04,960/- to the respondent (original applicant) with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum until realization as well as the incidental orders passed thereupon. The Appeal is under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. A substantial question of law involved in the Appeal is first required to be shown. The Appeal is filed by the employer of the Applicant who claimed to be a workman. It was denied that he was the workman. It was contended that he was a learner and hence, not a workman.
2. The issues framed by the learned Commissioner were whether the respondent was the workman, whether he sustained injuries during the course of his employment, whether he was permanently disabled on account of injuries, whether he earned Rs. 1,000/- per month as claimed by him and whether he was 29 years old at the time of the incident as claimed by him.
3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that there is a substantial question of law involved as to whether he could be taken to be the workman since he was the learner and be entitled to any compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the injuries suffered by him.
4. It is an admitted position that earlier the respondent served as a Watchman and then applied to be a learner to be able to work on the machines used for weaving in the respondent’s premises. It is also an admitted position that on 25.5.1994 he suffered injuries in an accident to his right thumb and three fingers of his right hand. His fingers have been amputated. His age and wage are denied. He has led evidence about his age contained in his School Leaving Certificate which is marked as Exhibit 30/1. The certificate is not challenged. Hence, the age is proved.
5. The respondent has claimed to be earning a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. He has not produced any wage certificate to that effect. In his evidence, he has stated that he was also earning over time and that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month claimed to be earned by him, included the over time. His claim of earning has been simplicitor denied. No documents have been produced to show how much he earned, if he did not earn as contended by him. He was admittedly a watchman and then a learner. After the accident, the appellant has deposited half of the respondent’s wages as statutorily required. These vouchers show that he was paid Rs. 325/- after the date of the accident. Hence, the appellant showed that the respondent earned Rs. 650/-. The vouchers specifically refer to amount as wages showing calendar months. Hence, it can be concluded upon the admitted document s of the appellant that the respondent’s monthly wages were of Rs. 650/- plus Over – Time (O.T.) amount. Consequently, his evidence about his consolidated earnings of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. stands to reason. The witness on behalf of the appellant deposed before the learned Commissioner that he did not know the earnings of the respondent and that he did not even know what was the minimum wages payable or paid to all the workers. It has been accepted by the learned Commissioner and the acceptance cannot be faulted. It is not seen to be perverse and does not require to be corrected in Appeal.
6. Exhibit 39 is the application made by the respondent to be a learner in the appellant-Undertaking. That application is dated 15.3.1994. There is nothing on record to show how long he would continue to be a learner. He is stated to be an unskilled worker. Upon his learning, he would acquire skill at work. The accident has taken place on 25.5.1994, more than two months after the application made as a learner by the respondent. There is no evidence on behalf of the appellant to show that his learning was of a specified duration or that it was for more than two months and that the respondent continued to be a learner and hence, could not have earned wages and could not have been a workman. All that is contended is that the amount of Rs. 650/- paid to him was not as wages of a workman but upon payment of Rs. 25/- per day for the days that he worked. The consolidated sum of Rs. 650/- shown in the two vouchers show that it is paid for the months of August and September 1994. The vouchers do not show the days on which the respondent worked. Hence, they must be taken to be vouchers for payment of monthly wages. Despite the case of the appellant that the respondent was only a learner and consequently not a workman, that has not been proved, The relationship of employer and employee is, therefore, seen. The contention that the relationship was that of student and teacher cannot be accepted. The learned Commissioner has correctly observed the relationship between the parties.
7. The fact remains that though he was a learner, the respondent was allowed to operate the machine, due to which he sustained injuries. It is the implicit responsibility and duty of the appellant not to allow learners to independently operate the machines to avoid such accidents. It is the evidence of the respondent that since another workman was absent, he was directed to operate the machine. It is the evidence on behalf of the respondent that he was forced to operate the machine on that day. This evidence is word against word. The learned Commissioner and Judge has accepted the evidence of the respondent. This acceptance stands to reason. The respondent cannot be in a position to dominate. He would be enjoined to accept the dictates of his master. Even if the respondent desired to operate the machine, which he was not entitled, there is an implicit responsibility upon the appellant not to allow him to operate the machine. The appellant would be guilty of the tort of negligence in allowing persons, who are not their workmen, to work on their machines and cannot avoid the liability arising directly from the accidents caused thereby. Hence, the respondent would be entitled to be compensated for his injury if he was only a learner, but allowed to operate the machine which only a workman could operate as much as if he was a workman himself. The appellant cannot avoid its statutory liability by allowing the respondent to handle the machine which caused the injury.
8. The purport and intent of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to provide financial protection to the workman in case of accidental injury by payment of compensation to him or his dependent s by way of social security. Its ultimate aim is, therefore, necessarily to avoid such accident Section Consequently, the evidence appreciated by the learned Commissioner in accepting the say of the respondent that he was made to work upon in the absence of another workman, has to be accepted.
9. The question of law involved in this Appeal is accordingly decided. The learned Commissioner has correctly considered the age as well as the wage of the respondent as the workman. His order is not perverse and cannot be faulted. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.