OM PARKASH BATISH versus RANJIT @ RANBIR KAUR AND OTHERS

OM PARKASH BATISH versus RANJIT @ RANBIR KAUR AND OTHERS

A casual employee appointed for a limited period to carry out repair works in a residential building is not a 'workman' under Section 2(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, as it stood at the time of the accident, and Schedule II does not alter this position; mere misappreciation of evidence by the lower courts does not constitute a substantial question of law for purposes of appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Om Parkash Batish; Respondents: Ranjit @ Ranbir Kaur and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Final Order of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in F.a.o. No.64/2001
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Workmen Compensation Act, Definition of 'workman', Casual Employment, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court Under Section 30
Labour Law Workmen Compensation Act Definition of 'workman' Casual Employment Jurisdiction of Appellate Court Under Section 30

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Om Parkash Batish

Appellant

Ranjit @ Ranbir Kaur and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Final Order of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in F.a.o. No.64/2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a casual employee appointed for a limited period to carry out repairing job in a residential building is a 'workman' under Section 2(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in granting compensation by proceeding as if misappreciation of evidence raises a substantial question of law under Section 30 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

A casual employee appointed for a limited period to carry out repair works in a residential building is not a 'workman' under Section 2(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, as it stood at the time of the accident, and Schedule II does not alter this position; mere misappreciation of evidence by the lower courts does not constitute a substantial question of law for purposes of appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside.
  • No order as to costs.