Since, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the applicant Ramu Pasi was engaged as a casual worker, it should number have entertained the claim petition.
The injury, on the left ring finger, according to the claimant was suffered when he was working in the factory of the appellant.
An appeal was preferred before the Patna High Court under Section 30 of the Act taking the stand that Ramu Pasi is number companyered by the expression workman, as defined in Section 2 n of the Act and, therefore, his claim petition before the Labour Court was number maintainable.
A Letters Patent Appeal was preferred before the Division Bench, which came to be dismissed on the ground that the same was number maintainable.
In these appeals, the order of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are assailed.
Further, the employee was number employed for the purposes of the employers trade and business.
Learned Single Judge was of the view that the said question was really of an academic interest because the quantum awarded was very small.
Adjudicating the claim made by the said Ramu Pasi claiming companypensation under the Act for an alleged injury suffered on 11.06.1986, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in short the Labour Court awarded companypensation of Rs.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals relate to a claim made by Ramu Pasi respondent No.
