JUDGMENT
Kulkarni, J.
1. This is an appeal by the respondent-1 against the order dated 22-10-1977 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur in Case No. WCC 4/73-74 awarding a compensation of Rs, 5000/-.
2. The facts that emerge from the material on record show that the deceased was working in the well which the respondent-1 was getting dug. According to Shri Bhat, Learned Counsel for the appellant, Respondent-1 had
entrusted the work of digging the well to the contractor Respondent-4 and that he had engaged the deceased for the purpose of working in the well. According to him, he comes within the exception created by Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act reads thus :
“2(n). “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 employer’s trade or business) who is….”
In order to come within the exception, the respondent No. I must show that the employment was casual in nature and that the deceased had been employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business. That the employment was of a casual nature cannot be disputed. But the question is whether it can be said that the employment was otherwise than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business. The employer-respondent-1 is not only a teacher but is also cultivating the land. Therefore, it cannot be said that the employment of the deceased was otherwise than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business i.e., agriculture which the Respondent-1 is carrying on. Therefore, he does not come within the exception created by Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
3. It has been laid down in Popatlal Mayaram – v. – Bai Lakhu Jetha, AIR 1952 Saurashtra 74 that if a person is engaged for the purposes of digging the
bore well and if in the course of that digging bore well, a pipe falls on the worker and he dies, he would be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. We are in full agreement with the said principles laid down by the High Court of Saurashtra.
4. The word ‘business’ used in Section 2(n) would include agriculture also. Therefore, the amount of compensation of Rs. 5000/- cannot be said to be excessive and opposed to the Schedule of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Sections 12 and 13 of the Act give a remedy to the employer to proceed against the contractor. He is at liberty to pursue the remedies open to him under the law.
5. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. No costs in the appeal.
