( 1 ) RESPONDENT in M. F. A. 3/66 on the file of the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation Dharwar has filed this appeal under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act) contending that the order passed by the Commissioner is not in accordance with law inasmuch as the claimant Mahaboob Sab was not a 'workman' within the meaning of the Act. ( 2 ) THE few facts necessary are that on 3-2-1966 and 4-2-1966 the claimant Mahaboob Sab had been employed by one Maniyar, a maistry or supervisor in the factory in question at Hubli as a turner. On 4-2-1966 the pulley belt connected to the lathe had become loose and therefore Mahaboob sab reported that fact to Maniyar. Basappa Ghodke, who was the owner of the factory, was present at that time. Basappa Ghodke and Maniyar told the claimant that he should proceed with the work as the work was urgent and at that the claimant told that it was not the job of a turner to tighten the belt and it was the work of a cobbler. The cobbler was not there. Basappa Ghodke and Maniyar told the claimant further that he should tighten the belt immediately and therefore he stood on a stool and tightened the belt. The engine was running at that time. While he was so tightening the belt and putting it on the pulley connecting to the lathe, the accident took place and he sustained injury to his hand. ( 3 ) IMMEDIATELY after the accident, the Manager of the factory reported the accident as per Ex. 4 to the Inspector of Factories. Later on the claimant instituted proceedings before the Commissioner claiming compensation. ( 4 ) IT was contended that the claimant was not at all a 'workman' employed by the authorities of the factory and so he was a mere trespasser and therefore the owner of the factory was not liable to pay any compensation. ( 5 ) IN regard to the facts that the learned Commissioner has found that the claimant had been employed as narrated by him in his evidence and he was working as a turner in that factory on 4-2-1966 and it was in the course of his employment as a turner that he sustained the injury in the accident, these facts cannot be questioned in this appeal. ( 6 ) SRI Suresh Joshi appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the burden was on the "claimant to establish that tightening of the belt and putting the belt on the pulley connecting to the lathe was in the course of his employment as a turner and he has failed to discharge that burden and therefore he is not entitled to compensation because the accident was unconnected with his employment. We are unable to agree with this contention because there is the evidence of the claimant that Basappa Ghodke the owner and Maniyar the maistry were both present at that time and they specifically directed him to tighten the belt and put it on to the pulley as the cobbler was absent and hence he did so and in the course of his doing so he sustained the injury. There is no evidence produced by the appellant contrary to this evidence of the claimant. The evidence on record goes to show that Basappa the owner died about three or four months after the incident. Gurappa, his son, has been examined and admittedly he was not present in the factory at the relevant time. Gurappa has sworn that the said maniyar, who was working as supervisor, was, even on the date of his examination, working as Supervisor in the factory. But he has not been examined as a witness. The only persons competent to speak as to what had transpired on that day appear to be this Maniyar and the Manager of the factory, who sent his report as per Ex. 4. None of them has been examined. In the result, the evidence of the claimant has to be accepted. ( 7 ) SRI Joshi nextly contended that the employment of the claimant, on his own showing was of a casual nature and therefore he cannot be regarded as a 'workman' as defined in the Act. Here again we are unable to accept this contention because, the definition clearly lays down that in order to exclude a person from the category of 'workman' defined in the Act, two ingredients must be present. Those ingredients are that the employment of such a person should not only be of casual nature but also for a purpose otherwise than for the purposes of employer's trade or business. Those ingredients are that the employment of such a person should not only be of casual nature but also for a purpose otherwise than for the purposes of employer's trade or business. Sri Joshi contended that even if one of these ingredients is satisfied, such a person would be removed out of the category of '. workman' as defined in the Act. There is a catena of decisions bearing on this point. All the decisions have taken note of a similar provision in Workmen's Compensation. Act 1906 in England. The Madras High Court has laid down this proposition in Armugam v. Ngammal , AIR. 1949 Mad. 462. Vinayak Mudaliar v. Mundala pothimma, AIR. 1953 Mad. 432. and T. N. Sitharama Reddiar v. A. Ayyaswami Gounder, AIR. 1956 Mad. 212. A plain reading of the definition of 'workman' in the Act shows that the word used as conjunction is 'and' and therefore it will have to be held that both the ingredients mentioned above would have to be satisfied in order to exclude a person from the category of the said definition. ( 8 ) WE, therefore, hold that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are in order and do not call for any interference. Hence we dismiss this appeal with costs. --- *** --- .