BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BY this Appeal under Sec. 30 of the Workmens Compensation act, 1923 ("act" for short, hereinafter), the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) and Ex-Offico Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, at Nadiad, on 30-7-1983, in a Workmens compensation Case No. 37 of 1982. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal, may be shortly stated, at the outset. The present appellant is the original opponent and the present respondent is the original claimant. They are, hereinafter, referred to as original claimant and original opponent for the sake of convenience and brevity. ( 3 ) THE original claimant filed an application for compensation of Rs. 23,900. 00 for personal injuries sustained by him while working as a labourer in a saw mill of original opponent. Original opponent was the owner of the saw mill and the original claimant was a labourer of the opponent under the provisions of the Act. The original claimant contended that he was working as a workmen of opponent and he was getting Rs. 275. 00 per month by way of salary. Original opponent is the owner of one "jay Bharat Saw mill" where the claimant was working as a labourer for pulling and cutting woods. The said Jay Bharat Saw Mill was situated in a village Alina, in nadiad Taluka. Thus, according to the case of the injured claimant, he was working as a labourer on a wood cutting machine on the day of the accident. The accident occurred, on 9-8-1981, at about 9-40 a. m. The left hand of the original claimant came in contact with the saw machine and the original had sustained serious injuries on his left hand wrist. On account of the injury there was profuse bleeding and the injured claimant was shifted to the dispensary of one Dr. I. C. Patel, where he was admitted as indoor patient and subsequently an operation was carried out on the left hand wrist and plastic surgery was also done. According to the case of the original claimant, he sustained permanent total disablement in his left hand as a result of which his left hand became useless for any work and he was unable to do the labour work. According to the case of the original claimant, he sustained permanent total disablement in his left hand as a result of which his left hand became useless for any work and he was unable to do the labour work. Thus, the claimant contended that he sustained disablement during the course of his employment with original opponent and, therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs. 23,900. 00 from the original opponent. ( 4 ) OPPONENT appeared and resisted the claim petition by filing written statement, at Ex. 8. The opponent/employer, inter alia, contended that the injured claimant was not a permanent labourer but he was working on daily wages and that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the workman. It was further contended that he was ready and willing to continue the claimant in his employment. The opponent also raised a contention that he spent about Rs. 2,954. 45 by way of medical expenses after the injuries sustained by the original claimant. It was also contended that the claimant was doing the work of his relative on a machine at the relevant time and, therefore, the accident was not out of and in the course of employment with the original opponent. Thus, the claim was, seriously resisted. ( 5 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the pleadings of the parties, issues came to be settled, at Ex. 10. ( 6 ) ORIGINAL claimant relied on his evidence , at Ex. 20, and on the evidence of Dr. M. H. Patel, at Ex. 26. He also relied on the medical certificate. Opponent was examined, at Ex. 32. Opponent was given time to produce books of accounts by the learned Commissioner during the course of cross-examination. However, he failed to produce the books of accounts and also did not appear for further cross-examination before the Court. ( 7 ) HAVING examined the evidence on record and on appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner was pleased to find that the original claimant was working as a workman in the saw mill of original opponent, at village Alina, from 11-11-1980 on a monthly salary of Rs. 275/ - and that the original claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 275/ - and that the original claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 16,380/ - as he sustained permanent partial disablement in his left hand on account of the personal injuries sustained by him in an accident which arose out of and in the course of the employment with original opponent. The learned Commissioner was also pleased to award Rs. 4,095. 00 by way of penalty under Sec. 4a (3) of the Act. The amount of compensation of Rs. 16,380. 00 was awarded with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the application till realisation, with costs. ( 8 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the original opponent has, now, come in appeal this Court challenging its legality and validity. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant/original opponent has contended that the original claimant was not a workman. The definition "workman" is provided in Sec. 2 (1) (n) of the Act. Relying on the said provision, it is contended on behalf of the appellant/original opponent that the original claimant was a casual labourer and he was not doing the work on machine for the purpose of his employers trade or business. This contention is running counter to the facts on record. There is clear evidence on record to show that the workman was engaged by the employer on the monthly salary of Rs. 275. 00. The learned commissioner has considered the evidence on record and has reached to the conclusion that the workman was working at a monthly salary of Rs. 275. 00 with original opponent/employer. This finding has remained unassailable. The original opponent/appellant, who was examined at Ex. 32, has clearly admitted in his evidence that the claimant was working on a machine in his saw mill. Despite this clear admission in the evidence of the original opponent/employer and also in the written statement, at Ex. 8, it is contended that the claimant was not a workman. In order to exclude the workman from the definition given in Sec. 2 (1) (n) of the Act, it must be shown that - (i) the employment of the claimant was of a casual nature, and (ii) that he was not employed for the purpose of the employers trade or business. In order to exclude the workman from the definition given in Sec. 2 (1) (n) of the Act, it must be shown that - (i) the employment of the claimant was of a casual nature, and (ii) that he was not employed for the purpose of the employers trade or business. In this, both the aforesaid conditions are not satisfied and, therefore, the person cannot be excluded from the definition of the term "workman" given in Sec. 2 (1) (n) of the Act. It is clearly found from the evidence on record that the original claimant was working on the machine in a saw mill of the original opponent and he was getting Rs. 275. 00 per month as a labourer. Therefore, according to the evidence on record, the claimant was neither a casual labourer nor his work was unconnected with the purpose of trade or business of the original opponent/employer. Therefore, the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant/original opponent cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) THE second contention raised on behalf of the original opponent/ employer is that the claimant sustained injury not in the course of the employment with him. Admittedly, the accident occurred, on 9-8-1981, at about 9-40 a. m. The factum of accident and the resultant injury are not disputed. There is also no dispute about the fact that the accident occurred during the working hours. Despite this, a contention was raised before the lower Court that at the relevant time when the accident occurred, the workman was doing wood cutting work of his relative and, therefore, the said work cannot be connected with the employers trade or business. This contention is also rightly disbelieved by the learned Commissioner. Same contention is now raised before this Court. I have gone through the entire record. There is no any justification to interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner on this point. On the contrary, this Court is also fully satisfied that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of the workman with the employer and the workman was doing labour work on a wood cutting machine, in a saw mill, owned by original opponent on the day of the accident. Therefore, the finding of the learned Commissioner is fully justified. Therefore, the finding of the learned Commissioner is fully justified. The contention that the accident did not occur out of and in the course of the employment with the original opponent/employer is without any substance. Therefore, second contention also must fail. ( 11 ) THE third contention which is canvassed before this Court on behalf of the employer is that he was ready and willing to continue the injured claimant/workman and, therefore, also the workman shall not be entitled to compensation under Sec. 3 of the Act. It appears that this contention was not raised before the learned Commissioner. Apart from that, such a suggestion was also not made to the claimant in the cross-examination. No doubt, a contention was raised in the written statement. Such a suggestion is also raised in this appeal. The opponent had also stated in his evidence, at Ex. 32. Therefore, the question would arise as to whether the said offer to keep and continue the workman in the services made by the employer in his evidence, at Ex. 32, would be sufficient to debar to workman to claim compensation under Sec. 3 of the Act. This contention cannot be sustained in the light of the facts of the present case and the settled position of law. In this, it may be mentioned that mere vague offer to keep and continue the workman in the employment even after the injury and the resultant disablement is not sufficient to disqualify the workmans claim under sec. 3 of the Act. It may be mentioned at this stage that the employer was directed by the learned Commissioner to produce books of accounts during the course of his cross-examination. Despite sufficient opportunity having been afforded to the employer, he flouted the direction given by the learned commissioner. The employer did not remain present even for further crossexamination. It was, therefore, not possible to ascertain from his evidence as to what were the terms and conditions on which he had made the offer. In the chief examination, the employer has conspicuously remained silent on this point, i. e. , as regards the terms and condition and the duration of the offer for employment. Therefore, on facts, such an offer cannot be said to be an offer as such. In the chief examination, the employer has conspicuously remained silent on this point, i. e. , as regards the terms and condition and the duration of the offer for employment. Therefore, on facts, such an offer cannot be said to be an offer as such. In fact it appears to be an excuse raised with mala fide intention to thwart the statutory liability cast upon the employer under Sec. 3 of the act. ( 12 ) APART from that, there is clear medical evidence on record to show that the claimant had sustained permanent partial disablement in his left hand wrist to the extent of 65 per cent, rendering him useless for labour work that he was doing prior to the accident. Therefore, the claimant/workman is unable to do and engage himself in paid labour work on account of permanent partial disablement in the left hand wrist. Therefore, the last contention raised in this appeal cannot be accepted. Hence, factually and legally, the appeal must fail. No other contention is raised. ( 13 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment, my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent workman wirth regard to the interim order passed by this Court for depositing the amount of compensation. In Civil Application no. 4469 of 1983, on 21-12-1983, this Court had directed that, out of the amount of compensation of Rs. 21,000. 00 an amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 should be invested in National Savings Certificates in the name of the workman for a period of six years in with series. The learned Commissioner was accordingly directed to take steps to see that a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 was deposited in National Savings certificates as aforesaid. The said period of six years must have expired and the certificate must have been matured. Therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the workman that some amount should be paid in cash and the remaining amount may be again invested. The claimant/workman was of 26 years at the time when he was examined before the learned Commissioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, following directions with regard to the said matured National Savings Certificates are issued : (i) That the learned Commissioner shall take necessary action to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000. The claimant/workman was of 26 years at the time when he was examined before the learned Commissioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, following directions with regard to the said matured National Savings Certificates are issued : (i) That the learned Commissioner shall take necessary action to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 together with the accumulated interest thereon, in a security for a further period not less than 10 years so as to see that the amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 together with the accumulated interest is invested properly and the interest which shall accrue due thereon thereafter could be paid to the workman/original claimant periodically. (ii) It will be open for the original claimant/workman to move the concerned learned Commissioner for any further withdrawal for appropriate and expedient reasons and it will be open for the learned commissioner to consider such request on merits, after the deposit is made, as aforesaid. ( 14 ) IN the result, the present appeal is required to be dismissed with costs as there is no merit and substance. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs. .