JUDGMENT : K.C. Agrawal, J.—This is an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act filed against the judgment of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. 2. The case of the Respondent was that he was employed on the farm of the Appellant. In the month of March 1971, while working on sugarcane crushing machine, he received injury in his right hand as a result of which three of his fingers had to be amputated. The Respondent claimed that he was employed on a monthly wage of Rs. 70/-. He claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by way of compensation. 3. The claim was contested by the Appellant. He denied that the Respondent was in his employment. 4. The Compensation Commissioner framed three issues and after recording evidence, gave findings to the effect that the Respondent was an employee of the Appellant and received the injury during the course of his employment with the Appellant. He also held that the case of the Respondent came within the purview of Workmen's Compensation Act. Aggrieved against this decision, the Appellant filed F.A.F.O. No. 33 of 972. The appeal was allowed by Hon'ble A. Banerji, J. on 7-12-73 and the Compensation Commissioner was directed to decide the question whether the Respondent received the injury during the course of his employment as a workman employed in farming by tractor or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity. After remand, the Compensation Commissioner found that the Appellant was having a power driven 'Charkhi' on which the Respondent was working as an employee when the incident was caused. He held that the case was covered by Item No. XXIX of Schedule II to the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Appellant filed the present appeal. 5. The only ground that arises for determination is whether the Respondent was employed in farming and received injury during the course of his employment. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that Respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act and further that his case did not come within the purview of Item No. XXIX of Schedule II to the Act. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that Respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act and further that his case did not come within the purview of Item No. XXIX of Schedule II to the Act. Item No. XXIX of Schedule II reads as under: The following persons are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) and subject to the provisions of that section, that is to say, any person who is: employed in farming by tractors or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity. 6. In order to be covered by the aforesaid item, the requirement was as to that the claimant must have been engaged in the trade and business of 'farming'. Counsel for the Appellant contended that as the act of crushing of sugarcane was not connected with or covered by expression 'farming', the Respondent was not entitled to get the compensation. The word 'farming' has not been defined in the Act. It does not necessarily include only the land under cultivation and within a fence. The farming means raising of crop, poultry, sale of chickens and eggs etc. The Act beings a beneficial legislation that has to be construed in a manner that fulfilled its object. The term farming' should include all operations which a farmer necessarily engages in. Such operations would be covered by the phrase 'farming'. It is not merely the sloughing of land by tractors or other contrivances driven by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity which alone is covered. 7. In Joginder Singh Vs. Niranjan Singh, a workman met with an accident while working on chaff cutter belonging to the employer. The application was contested on the ground that since the fodder cutting on the chaff cutter was not connected with farming, the workman was not entitled to compensation. The argument was not accepted. The Court held that a farmer while farming has to find fodder for his cattle and, therefore, the workman was covered by Item No. XXIX In my view also the word 'farming' should be widely construed and must not be confined to the activity of actually tilling the land or sowing the crop. In the present times, when the farming has assumed varied shape, the activity to be covered by the word 'farming' should not be limited to actual cultivation or sowing. In the present times, when the farming has assumed varied shape, the activity to be covered by the word 'farming' should not be limited to actual cultivation or sowing. A farmer engaged in agricultural pursuits is required to use tractors or other contrivances for multifarious purposes. Any farmer who is engaged in agricultural pursuits and is using tractors or other contrivances which are driven by steam or other mechanical power, or by electricity, would be covered in case he engages a workman in these pursuits. 'Farming' in my opinion, means carrying on these activities appropriate to the land recognisable as farm land. Crushing of sugarcane is directly connected with farming. The Appellant would have not been a farmer, his case might not have been covered by Entry XXIX, but that is not so In the present case, the Respondent was crushing sugarcane on the power driven charkhi. In the light of the facts of the present case, the Respondent had to be treated a 'workman' as the activity in which he was engaged was covered by Item No. XXIX of Schedule. II. For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.