P L D 1958 (W (PLP)

CONSTANTINE, J.

‑ In this case respondent 1 had filed application before the judge of the Small Causes Court as ex‑officio Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, against the Karachi Municipal Corporation. After the case had proceeded for sometime, it was found that the true employer of her deceased husband was the Pir Illahi Bux Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., the present appellant. As amended application was allowed and the Housing Society filed its statement. Three legal pleas, in addition to other points, were taken and one of these was that the deceased was not a workman within the meaning of the Act. Evidence of three witnesses was led. The wife said nothing about his duties except that he was a water‑carrier on the Karachi Municipal Corporation water van. Bundoo said that he had been water‑carrier on the Karachi Municipal Corporation water van along with the deceased. He said ' drivers used to pick up water‑carriers from their houses '. The third witness Ismail said that he was a water‑carrier and worked with the deceased on the same van. There was no cross‑examination on behalf of the appellant for when this evidence was recorded, he was not yet a party. No further evidence was recorded. The learned Commissioner found as follows :‑ " The deceased had to ride the truck as a part of his duty. The truck had to rush about supplying water in the entire colony which sprawls over a considerable area. It is absurd to affect that the water‑carriers would travel behind the truck instead of riding on it. The former course would have caused inordinate delay in the work of distribution. Therefore I believe that the employer must have directed the water‑carriers to make use of the truck in the interest of the work ". As I understand Mr. Azmatullah, I do not think he quarrels with this description of work of the deceased, but his contention is that these findings of fact did not amount in law to a finding within the definition of ' workman' in Schedule 11, of the Act. Mr. Rizvi has relied upon entries 1 (i) and (x) of the Schedule. Entry (x), so far as material, reads :‑ " employed . . . . in the construction, working, repair, or demolition of any aerial ropeway, canal, pipeline or sewer Assuming that water vans carry water from a pipe line, yet the carrying of water from the taps and the subsequent distribution of water, in my opinion, had nothing, to do with the working of the pipe line. Entry (i) reads " employed . . . in connection with the operation or maintenance of" mechanically propelled vehicle. Mr. Rizvi has relied upon Ali Muhammad v. Shanker (1) which was a case where a workman who had been engaged to help in loading and unloading bricks from a lorry, was concerned but the learned judges pointed out clearly that a Government Notification of 1938 had added an entry to Schedule II of the Act so as to include persons employed for the purpose of loading or unloading any mechanically propelled vehicle. Mr. Rizvi has not been able to point out any similar notification applicable to Karachi, nor has the learned Commissioner pointed out any such notification. In my opinion, the words in the definition operation of a mechanically propelled vehicle do not include the duties of a water‑carrier who rides upon a vehicle in order to (1) A I R 1946 Bom. 169 be able more expeditiously to get water for distribution of the Colony. His duties, so far as I can see, have nothing to do with the operation of the vehicle. Upon this point, therefore, I consider that the learned Commissioner was at fault upon a point of law. Mr. Azmatullah has also relied upon the other legal grounds, namely, want of notice and limitation, but was content not to develop those arguments in view of the successful arguments upon the definition of a ' workman '. The result is that the appeal is allowed the compensation deposited should be refunded to the appellant. Mr. Azmatullah, in the circumstance, claims no costs. A. H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.