Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P3 order of the Agricultural Tribunal, Palai, declaring a 'Pumping Motor Driver', as an 'agricultural worker'. 2. Petitioner is the Convenor of a 'Padasekhara Committee'. An electric motor had been installed outside the 'Padasekharam', and it was operated by a 'driver'. Petitioner would say that a Pump Operator, is not an agricultural worker, in the comprehension of the Agricultural Workers Act. S.2 (f) of the Agricultural Workers Act, 1974, defines 'agricultural worker' as: "..a person who. in consideration of the wages payable to him by a landowner, works on, or does any other agricultural operation in relation to, the agricultural land of such landowner". The Tribunal, found the Pump Operator to be an agricultural worker without any discussion on this aspect. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner invited my attention to the decision of this Court in Bhargavan Nair v. Kolappan Assart (1982 KLT. 144), where a learned judge of this Court took the view that a person works on land only when he engages himself in some physical activity on the land. According to counsel for respondents, the Pumping Motor Driver is doing something which is essential for agricultural operation. To my mind, that will not make him an agricultural worker. Even activities of those, who are not agricultural workers, may help agricultural activities. For example, those who charge the power lines which energise the motors, those who produce fertilisers and a host of others do work, congenial or even essential to agricultural operations. But, that does not make their work, agricultural operation. To qualify under the act, the worker most work on the land, or do agricultural operation in relation to such land. It is not enough if be does something related to agriculture. It must be 'in relation to such land'. A proximate, or causal, relationship must exist between the worker and agriculture, if he is to be an agricultural worker. His immediate activity must be agricultural, and it cannot be an intermediate or ancillary activity. 4. On the contrary, the Industrial Disputes Act contains a wider definition. Likewise, in other statutes inclusive definitions are given. To cite an example, the Employees State Insurance Act understands an employee. as a person employed by the principal employer or through an immediate employer, on work ancillary or incidental to the work of the factory. 4. On the contrary, the Industrial Disputes Act contains a wider definition. Likewise, in other statutes inclusive definitions are given. To cite an example, the Employees State Insurance Act understands an employee. as a person employed by the principal employer or through an immediate employer, on work ancillary or incidental to the work of the factory. In the absence of such a wide definition, S.2(f) must be given its natural meaning. Such is the understanding of the legislature, in the Minimum Wages Act. Agricultural workers are understood as (i) men doing hard work, (ii) women doing light work including preparation of pits or bunds for planting coconut saplings, (iii) ploughing, (iv) transplanting, (v) plucking coconuts, and (vi) harvesting and threshing operations. 5. The imagery, of an agricultural worker brings the picture of one tilling the soil or toiling on the soil. If outside the context of the act, if some one asked the petitioner what his occupation was. the petitioner himself would have said, 'Pump Operator', and not 'agricultural worker'. 6. I would understand the expression 'agricultural worker' as one who works on the land, in what is commonly understood as agricultural operations. (One, who is engaged in activities ancillary or incidental or purposeful to agriculture, is not an agricultural worker, under S.2(f) of the Act, in the absence of an inclusive definition or a deeming fiction taking into the fold of the definition, one engaged in activities that may be related to agriculture, but is not agriculture, itself. In this view Ext.P3 is quashed, and the Original Petition is allowed. No costs.