Full Judgment
Amar Dutt, J.
1. Mukhtiar Singh has filed the present appeal to challenge the order dated 10.10.1978 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur, while exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Workman's Compensation Act.
2. The appellant had filed a petition before the Court below claiming that he was employed with the respondent and on 24.2.1977, during the course of his employment, he had suffered injury on his left hand while working on an electric motor. He had indicated that he was getting daily wages of Rs. 10/- and had served a legal notice to pay the compensation due to him, but to no avail. Since he had suffered 70% disability, the petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs. 17,640/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. and penalty of Rs. 8,820/-.
3. The petition was contested on various grounds which included an objection to the effect that the petitioner was not a workman and he was a sharecropper with the respondent and was entitled to receive l/5th share of produce. The respondent, it was submitted, was not paying to the petitioner anything from his own pocket. It was also asserted that the petitioner was doing his personal work at the time of accident and since the injuries had not been sustained during the course of the employment, therefore, he was not entitled to receive any compensation from the respondent. It was indicated that out of generosity, the respondent had spent a sum of Rs. 1000/- when he had removed the petitioner to the Civil Hospital though he was under no legal obligation to do so. From the stand taken by the parties, following issues were framed:-
'1. Whether the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act and was in the employment of Amar Singh respondent on 24.2.1977? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries on his left arm resulting in permanent partial disablement in the course of his employment with Amar Singh respondent? OPP
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, for what amount? OPP
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of compensation, if any, determined If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover any amount by way of penalty from the respondent? If so, to what extent? OPP
6. Whether the petitioner was a co-sharer (Siri) of the respondent on 1 /5th share of the produce? If so its effect? OPR
7. Whether the respondent spent a sum of Rs. 1000/- on the treatment of the petitioner? OPR
8. Whether a petition filed by the petitioner before the Labour Inspector was dismissed? If so, what is its effect on the present petition? OPR
9. Whether the petition is barred by time? OPR
10. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition? OPR
11. Relief.'
4. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was working as a Siri and hence he would not be entitled to be treated as a workman under the Act. The appellant had clearly indicated in the statement that he was being paid daily wages @ Rs. 10/- and, therefore, there was no reason for denying him the benefit under the Act. He has relied upon Thana Singh v. Shadi, 1978 P.L.J. 159, in which it was observed that a Siri cannot be termed as a co-sharer and, therefore, could not maintain an application before the revenue Courts for rendition of accounts.
5. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that in view of the fact that a Siri was not a person in the employment of the landlord as was clear from the fact that he was to be given a share in the produce and not wages for the work done by him, the trial Courthad rightly relied upon the observations contained in Bakhshish Singh v. Kartar Singh, (1956)58 P.L.R. 476, to the effect that a Siri doing in cultivation had to be considered to be a co-sharer for coming to the conclusion that the appellant was not a workman and, therefore, not entitled to get compensation under the Act.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel.
7. For the purpose of determining whether the appellant was entitled to maintain a petition under the Act one will have to advert to the definition of Workman as contained under Section 2(n) of the Act, which reads as under:-
2(n) 'Workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a causal nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is -
(i) a railway servant as defined in Clause (34) of Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989) not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or
'(ia) (a) a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship.
(b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft.
(c) a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India, or'
(ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them.'
This Section makes it clear that for being termed as a workman, a person has to be working in a contract employment as has been observed in any capacity. A Siri is a person who is not employed for doing any agricultural operation on wages to be paid to him, but is a co-sharer in cultivation who is entitled to an agreed share of the produce obtained from the land as a result of the agricultural operations in which he is taking part. This is the view which was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Bakshshish Singh's case (supra), although the observation were made in relation to the rights of the co-sharer to maintain an application under Section 77(3)(k) of the Punjab Tenancy Act for his share in the produce. Though in Thana Singh's case (supra) there are observations to the effect that a Siri would not be able to maintain an application under Section 77(3Xk) of the Punjab Tenancy Act for obtaining his share of the crops jointly cultivated by him with the owner of the land, yet this judgment is not an authority for the proposition that Siri ceases to be entitled to receive the share of the produce agreed to between him and the one of the land and becomes an employee who is employed by the owner for wages, and, therefore, would fall within the definition of workman under the Act and as such would be entitled to maintain an application under the Act. In my view, a Siri is a person who agrees to cultivate the land of the owner along with him and for his contribution in the cultivation, is given a share of the produce and, therefore, cannot be termed as a workman under the Act.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.