Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the widow and children of one Mannankatti, who is said to have died consequent upon his having sprayed a land with the insecticide folidol, which land is alleged to belong to the respondent, who it is alleged, was the person who employed the deceased Mannankatli to spray folidol on his land against the decision of the Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Madras, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under S. 10 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation in respect of the death of the aforesaid Mannankatti. 2. The first witness examined on the side of the appellants clearly testified to the fact that the deceased was spraying folidol on the land of the respondent. That is the only evidence available to show that the deceased was spraying folidol on the land of the respondent. Soon after he had completed spraying he appears to have become unconscious, and subsequently died apparently as a result of the infection of the poisonous particles emitted, while the insecticide was being sprayed. The respondent denied that be employed the deceased for spraying his lands. But apart from his interested denial, there is no evidence to rebut the evidence furnished by P.W. 1, whose evidence there are no grounds to reject. Therefore, it may be taken as proved that the deceased Mannankatti died as a result of his having infected poisonous particles of the insecticide when spraying the lands of the respondent with the insecticide folidol. The Additional Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, however, dismissed the applica tion for compensation filed by the appellants on the ground that the work of spraying folidol in the agricultural land of the respondent is not covered by the schedule of employments detailed in schedule II of the Workmens Compensation Act, and therefore, the accident was not one covered by the Act.” 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has however pointed out that the work of spraying folidol in agricultural land would come under item (xxix) mentioned in schedule II of the Workmens Compensation Act. The learned counsel for the appellants has however pointed out that the work of spraying folidol in agricultural land would come under item (xxix) mentioned in schedule II of the Workmens Compensation Act. He has further argued that schedule II is not an exhaustive list of the various employments in which a person should be employed if he were to claim the benefits of the Workmens Compensation Act, but is only illustrative of the kind of employments which would be covered by the definition of workman contained in the Act, and in support of his contention he has cited the decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in Shaik Jafarji Hiptullah Bhoy Gin Press Factory, Amraoti v. Shaik Ismail , A.I.R. 1937 Nag, 311 where the learned Judge has observed that Schedule II of the Workmens Compensation Act does not limit the scope of the definition given in S. 2(1)(n) and that it merely illustrates it. With great respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to subscribe myself to that proposition when the wording of S. 2(1)(n) of the Workmens Compensation Act clearly shows that Schedule II specifies the nature of the employment in which the workman should be employed if he were to come under the definition of a workman who would be entitled to be covered by the Act. S. 2(1)(n) reads as follows: “Workman” means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employers trade or business) who is—(i) a railway servant as defined in S. 3 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, not permanently employed in an administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in schedule II, or (ii) employed on monthly wages not exceeding five hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in schedule II. .. ” The words ‘in any such capacity as is specified in schedule II’ clearly indicate that the list given in schedule II is completely exhaustive and is not illustrative. If the employment is one that would not come under any of the categories mentioned in schedule II, the definition of ‘workman’ in S. 2(1)(n) cannot be applied to that person. In Golden Soap Factory v. Nakulchandra Mandal 1963-2 L.L.J. 580; A. T. R. 1964 Cal. If the employment is one that would not come under any of the categories mentioned in schedule II, the definition of ‘workman’ in S. 2(1)(n) cannot be applied to that person. In Golden Soap Factory v. Nakulchandra Mandal 1963-2 L.L.J. 580; A. T. R. 1964 Cal. 217 and Ukhara Farming Corporation Ltd. v. Satubala Badint 1954-2 L.L. J. 406 it has been clearly held that the definition of workman’ in the Act is exhaustive and the Act applies only to those classes of workmen defined in S. 2 (1)(n) and enumerated in schedule II thereof. 4. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the employment of the deceased for spraying folidol on the lands of the respondent would, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, come under item (xxix) of schedule II, Item (xxix) of schedule II is worded as follows:— “employed in farming by tractors or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity:’ The ambit of the word ‘farming’ has to be understood before we could properly view the words ‘employed in farming by tractors or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricityIn Venkataramaiayas Law Lexicon, 1971, Volume I ‘farming’ has been defined to include all operations which a farmer necessarily engages in and is not limited to ploughing of land by tractors or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity which alone is covered. It is further noted in that explanation of the word that ‘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 cannot be ruled out and held to be not a farming operation and that the crux of the matter is that a farmer who is engaged in agricultural pursuits and is using tractors or other contrivance which are driven by steam or mechanical power or electricity is covered in case he engages a workman in these pursuits”. These observations have apparently been taken from the decision in Joginder Singh v. Niranjan Singh (1970)-1 L. L. J. 479. There, one Niranjan Singh met with an accident while working on a chaff-cutter belonging to the appellant and bis arm was injured and amputated. These observations have apparently been taken from the decision in Joginder Singh v. Niranjan Singh (1970)-1 L. L. J. 479. There, one Niranjan Singh met with an accident while working on a chaff-cutter belonging to the appellant and bis arm was injured and amputated. He made an application under R. 20 read with Ss. 3 and 22 of the Workmens Compensation Act for compensation for the injury caused to him contending that he was a regular employee of the appellant and that during the course of his employment he met with the accident and the chaff-cutter was being worked by mechanical process, that is by an electric motor. The finding of the Commissioner was that Niranjan Singh was in the regular employment of the respondent, that the chaff-cutter belonged to the respondent and that in the course of employment he suffered the injury on his arm which led to its amputation. The learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature, Punjab and Haryana, held that all operations which a farmer necessarily engages in, would be covered by the phrase ‘farming’, and it is not merely the ploughing of land by tractors or other contrivance driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity which alone is covered. With great respect, I am inclined to agree with that view of the learned Judge. But then, in this case there is no evidence at all that the sprayer which the deceased was using was worked or driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity. The appellants have not that in any evidence in regard to that aspect of the matter. It for them to prove that they are entitled to compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act and also to prove all the necessary facts which would entitle them to claim compensation under the Act, and since they have not let in any evidence to show that the sprayer which the deceased was using was worked or driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity, it cannot be presumed that item (xxix) of schedule II would apply to this case. It must be noted that sprayers are of different kinds. It must be noted that sprayers are of different kinds. There are sprayers which are operated by hand, which consist of a pump in which the piston is worked by hand and by operating the piston the liquid is drawn in and subsequently when the piston is pushed in the liquid is discharged in an atomised form. There are also sprayers which are worked by air compressors and there are sprayers which are worked by mechanical power. In the absence of any evidence as to what kind of sprayer was used by the deceased, it cannot be held that this case would come under item (xxix) of schedule II. In those circumstances this appeal has to be and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.