Short Note : 1. The appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was directed against the order made by the Commissioner appointed under the Act dismissing the application for compensation filed by the appellant for claiming compensation on the ground of permanent disability alleged to have been incurred during the course of employment. The application had been dismissed on the preliminary ground that the applicant, in the facts and circumstance of the case, was not covered by the definition of the term "Workman" as given in the Act. 2. The main contention raised on behalf on the appellant, while attacking the order impugned, was that the Commissioner erred in law in holding that the applicant was not covered by the definition of the term Workman. It was urged that the Commissioner totally overlooked the legal position that in order to exclude a person from the definition of Workman, the mere fact that the employment was otherwise than for the purpose of employers trade or business in itself is not sufficient. There should be a further finding that the employment was of casual nature. In the opinion of this Court, the legal position that a person to be excluded from the definition of Workman as contained in section 2 clause (n) of the Act must not be one who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business, but also one whose employment is of casual nature. Both these qualifications, must be present together. Hirjibhai Lakhansibhai vs. Damodar, 1957 JLJ 250 and Gopal vs. Alladi, 1967 (14) FLR 425, referred to. Case sent back for fresh disposal. Appeal allowed.