D.K. Mahajan, J.
1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensate an Act is directed against; the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent, Niranjan Singh, met with an accident while working on chaff-cutter belonging to the appellant. The respondent's arm was injured and amputated. The respondent made an application under Rule 20 read with Sections 3 and 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation for the injury caused to him. The applicant's case was that he was the regular employee of the appellant, Joginder Singh, that during the course of employment he met with an accident and the chaff-cutter was being worked by mechanical process, i.e., by by an electric motor. The defence set up by the employer was that Niranjan Singh was not at all his employee, that he had come to cut his own chaff and that the chaff-cutter did not belong to him. The Commissioner after recording the evidence came to the conclusion on evidence that Niranjan Singh was in the regular employment of Joginder Singh, that the chaff-cutter belonged to Joginder Singh and that in the course of employment Niranjan Singh suffered the injury on his arm which led to its amputation. On the quantum of compensation, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that. Niranjan Singh was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,520, but as he had only claimed Rs. 2,100, that amount was allowed by the Commissioner. Against this decision the present appeal has been preferred.
3. Under Section 30 of the Act an appeal only lies on a substantial question of law. The learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, rightly did but agitate any questions of fact, namely, as to whether Niranjan Singh was in the employment of Joginder Singh, whether the chaff-cutter belonged to Joginder Singh and whether it was driven by power. His sole contention is that under Sch. II, item (xxix), which is in these terms:
The following persons are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) and subject to the provision of that section, that is to say, any person who is-
* * *(xxix) employed in farming by tractor or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity ; or, * * *
an accident by a chaff-cutter is not covered thereunder. In short, the argument is this that only these cases fall under the Workmen's Compensation Act where a farmer is engaged in mechanized farming and as the appellant was not engaged in mechanized farming, the case of the applicant is not covered by Sch. II, item (xxix). It is also contended that employment in farming by tractors or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity would not cover the case of cutting of chaff because that would not come within the phrase 'farming'.
4. I am unable to agree with these contentions. In my opinion, all operations which a farmer necessarily engages in would be covered by the phrase ' farming.' It is not merely the ploughing of land by tractors or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity which alone is covered. A farmer while farming has to find fodder for his cattle and also engages in various other pursuits intimately connected with the ploughing of land. For instance, carting manure on a mechanically propelled vehicle could not be ruled out and held to be not a farming operation. The crux of the matter is that a farmer who is engaged in agricultural pursuits and is using tractors or other contrivances which are driven by steam or mechanical power or electricity is covered incase he engages a workman in these pursuits. If the accident is caused by such tractors or contrivances, it will surely fall within Clause (xxix). I see no escape from it. The learned Counsel has been unable to cite any authority which supports his contention.
5. No other contention has been advanced.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal falls and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.