Kunhamed Kutti, J.
1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,800 to the respondent Chinnathayi Ammal, the widow of Andi Munuswami, who met with his death by falling into a lime pit in the appellant's tannery on 17 September 1958. The accident was reported by the appellant to the sub-inspector of police and also to the Inspector of Factories to whom he appears to have stated that the deceased fell into the pit on account of fits. This statement was repeated before the Commissioner when the question of compensation was being considered by him, but on the evidence let in before him, the Commissioner held that the deceased died as a result of his falling into the lime pit and not because of his fall due to fits and I am in complete agreement with this conclusion.
2. So far as the compensation awarded is concerned, two objections are urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant ;
(1) that the deceased being a casual worker, Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply ; and
(2) that even if he is deemed to be a worker coming within Section 5 of the Act. the mode of calculation of compensation adopted by the Commissioner is not in accordance with the said section.
3. As regards the first objection, it seems to me that so far as I am concerned, the matter is concluded by the Bench decision of this Court in Periyakkal v. Agent, South Indian Railway Company, Ltd. I.L.R. 58 Mad. 804. In that case it has been held that a person to be excluded from the definition of ' workman ' in S.2, Clause (n), of the Act, must not only be one 'whose employment is of a casual nature ' but also one ' who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade and business.' Admittedly, the present case is one where the deceased had been employed for the employer's trade and, therefore, the fact that he was merely a casual worker would not exclude him from the definition of workman entitled to relief under Section 5. The first objection has, therefore, to fall.
4. As regards the second objection, a sum of Rs. 1,000 was claimed by the respondent as the compensation payable. This was calculated on the basis of the deceased having been paid a sum of Re. 2 as dally wages. The method of calculating compensation in a base like this is prescribed in Section 5, and Schedule IV appended to the Act shows that where a worker was earning monthly wages between Rs. 50 and Rs. 60 the compensation on death is a sum of Rs. 1,800. Nevertheless, It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the case of a worker like the deceased who was employed only for a day and who would not have been put to work for full thirty days, the method of calculation on the basis of Section 5 adopted by the Commissioner is uncalled for. The learned Counsel, however, has not been able to point out any alternative method. Both the appellant and the respondent have let in evidence in this case and what would appear on the evidence is that the monthly wages of the deceased would have been Rs. 60, and that the calculation of compensation made by the Commissioner on the aforesaid basis is the correct basis. It seems to me, therefore, that there is no substance in the second objection as well.
5. This appeal, therefore, falls and the same is dismissed but without costs, as the counsel for the respondent did not appear when the case was heard.