JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred against order and award dated 7th August, 1997. passed under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 2. Under Jaldhara Scheme of the State Government it was decided to dig well at Government cost on the land possessed by Budhu Oraon alias Budur Runda. son of Bhairo Oraon of Village Doriya, P.S. Tamar, district Ranch!. 3. Under the Scheme raiyat of the land was executing agent of construction work of well on behalf of the State. He being beneficiary of the Scheme, was to get the well dug and the Xavier Institute of Social Service, Ranchi was deputed by the State Government to supervise the Scheme and make payment of Labour Charges etc. The said Institute was not executing agent of the Scheme on behalf of the Government. 4. Budhu Oraon alias Budur Runda was full brother of Dhup Oraon alias Dhun Oraon husband of respondent No. 1 herein, who was working as Mason for construction of well. On 10.5.1988 while he was doing brick work inside the well, there was land slide and on that account the said Mason received serious injuries. He was taken to Ranchi Medical College and Hospital, where he died. 5. The widow of the deceased made application under the provisions of the Act for compensation against the Deputy Development Commissioner as well as Xavier Institute of Social Service. 6. In the impugned order/award dated 7.8.1997, Presiding Officer, Labour court, Ranchi, held that both the Deputy Development Commissioner, Ranchi Collectoriate and the Director, Xavier Institute of Social Service, Ranchi, were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 70,941/- as compensation to the claimant, under Section 4 of the Act. Simultaneously direction was also given to pay a sum of Rs. 17,735/- by way of penalty, under Section 4-A(3)(b) of the Act. 7. The Director. Xavier Institute of Social Service has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Act. 8. Mr. Bakshi, counsel for the appellant, submitted that neither the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act nor Xavier Institute of Social Service was liable to pay any amount of compensation under the Act. 7. The Director. Xavier Institute of Social Service has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Act. 8. Mr. Bakshi, counsel for the appellant, submitted that neither the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the Act nor Xavier Institute of Social Service was liable to pay any amount of compensation under the Act. The deceased was a casual labourer and working under Budhu Oraon alias Budur Runda who was the executing agent of Dug Well work under Jaldhara Scheme of the State Government, Xavier Institute of Social Service was simply supervising the workings under the Scheme and making payments on behalf of State Government and was not its executing agent. 9. Workman means a person other than a person whose employment is of casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employers trade and business. From the aforesaid definition it is clear that there must be a relationship of an employer before a person can be said to be a workman vis-a-vis his employer. Even if there was such relationship it has to be further analysed to find if the employment of the employee was of a casual nature and he was employed for the purpose of employers trade or business. It was for the claimant to prove that deceased was a "workman employed for trade or business of his employer. Further, as compensation was to be paid by the employer onus to prove that a particular person was not a workman was on him.. 10. On the evidence on record we are of the opinion that the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving that her husband was a workman as defined under the Act. In her deposition she stated that dug-well work was being done through Xavier Mission and her husband was engaged by the said Mission to work as mason. She admitted that the well was being dug on the land of Budhu Oraon, who was younger brother of her husband. 11. In the aforesaid circumstance, we are of the view that deceased was not a workman within the meaning of the Act and the claimant was not entitled to claim compensation under the Act for death of her husband in course of construction of aforesaid well on his brothers land under Jaldhara Scheme of the State Government. 12. The impugned order and award dated 7th August. 1997. 12. The impugned order and award dated 7th August. 1997. passed in W.C. Case No. 1 of 1997 is set aside and the said case is dismissed as not maintainable under the Act. 13. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, but without costs.