Manohar Bhimappa More Vs. Mahadev Bhimappa More and anr.

.....purpose of the act is that such a sale should not take place after the act having come into force. it might be a quirk of fate but, however, this is how the statute would work. there certainly should be a cut off date and that is 1.1.1979. indeed a fine distinction is required to be drawn between the sales which have taken place after the embargo prior to the act having come into force and the sales which have taken place after the act having come into force after the non-alienation period is over. in fact, section 4 would commence with a non-obstante clause which would necessarily mean that notwithstanding any transaction which have taken place at any point of time, if any sale takes place after the act has come into force i.e. 1.1.1979, the purchaser is required to obtain necessary permission from the government. section 4(2) of the act cannot be read down if the sale has taken place after the act having come into force after the expiry of the non-alienation clause and the sale which takes place after the act having come into force is invalid. further, it is true that any sale deed which contravenes the act is debarred from being registered. but, however, the fact remains that such a sale if registered does not necessarily mean that section 4(2) of the act is required to be overlooked. indeed, section 8 of the act would also contemplate that if any sale takes place after the act has come into force in contravention of section 4(2) the purchaser is liable to be prosecuted. - 3. on thorough consideration of the facts, the view taken by the workmen's compensation commissioner is bad in law. 4. for the reasons and discussions made above, the view taken by the workmen's compensation commissioner is bad in law......the tractor-trailer in question. the insurer, respondent no. 2, took up the plea that the injured is the brother of the respondent no. 1 and cannot be considered as a workman and sought exoneration of liability.2. the commissioner for workmen's compensation upheld the contention of the insurer and rejected the claim without considering the other aspects.3. on thorough consideration of the facts, the view taken by the workmen's compensation commissioner is bad in law. after all the tractor-trailer is meant to be used for agriculture purpose and it requires employment of people. in the rural lifestyle, it is not uncommon to find the practice of oral appointment for specific purpose and time. many a time, the persons in the family would be employed for doing the work instead of employing strangers. the fact that the injured is the brother and the guarantor for repayment of the loan is not a valid reason to hold that he was not a workman employed in connection with the tractor-trailer. the member of the family so employed cannot be considered as a workman in law only when he is the registered owner of the vehicle. hence there is no inhibition in law for employment of member of the family in connection with the tractor-trailer. in view of the peculiar family relationship it is absurd to insist on documentary proof of appointment and the payment of wages by cash as the only mode of consideration for proof of employment.4. for the reasons and discussions made above, the view taken by the workmen's compensation commissioner is bad in law. accordingly, the order of the workmen's compensation commissioner is set aside. the matter is remanded to the workmen's compensation commissioner for assessment of the income, disability and the compensation payable in accordance with law. accordingly, the appeal is allowed as indicated above.