( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 07-03-2003, in W. C. No. 187 of 1999, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the Insurance company, the respondents 1 to 4 are the applicants and the respondents 5 and 6 are the employers of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the deceased was on duty as a private clerk with the employer during the construction of a building and he fell down while he was pouring the water due to shortage of labour on that day. Because of the accident, by falling from the fifth floor, the deceased died while undergoing treatment. ( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned standing Counsel for the appellant is that the insurance policy does not cover the clerks and on the other hand it covers only the risk of masons, carpenters, electricians and casual labour. There is no dispute that the policy was subsisting at the time of the death of the deceased. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the applicants, the first applicant examined herself as P. W. 1 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-9 on their behalf. On behalf of the appellant, R. W. 1, who is a doctor, and another as R. W. 2 were examined and Exs. R-1 and R-2 were marked. ( 6 ) THE whole contention of the appellant is that the policy does not cover to the claimants. ( 7 ) P. W. 1, who is the wife of the deceased, has stated that her husband was working with Respondents 1 and 2 as private clerk and also to do all miscellaneous jobs; that he used to work in construction of buildings; that sometimes he used to help the maistries at the construction spot. However, it is admitted by her that her husband joined as a clerk. She further stated that the deceased was being paid Rs. 1,500/- per month. ( 8 ) BUT, the admitted fact was that the deceased died while pouring water from the fifth floor during the construction work. However, it is admitted by her that her husband joined as a clerk. She further stated that the deceased was being paid Rs. 1,500/- per month. ( 8 ) BUT, the admitted fact was that the deceased died while pouring water from the fifth floor during the construction work. Even assuming that the deceased was appointed as a clerk, the very fact that he was pouring water from the fifth floor itself denotes that he was doing casual job like pouring water or any other work other than the clerical as and when required. ( 9 ) IT is also not in dispute that the policy covers the risk of masons, carpenters, electricians and casual labour. From the evidence on record, it is clear that even though the deceased was employed as a clerk, he was attending the duties of casual workers like pouring water etc. This is evident, as already pointed out, by virtue of the fact that the deceased died while pouring water from the fifth floor at the construction spot. Therefore, his job has to be treated as casual employment, may be on that particular fateful day. When his employment itself was a casual one, on that particular day, the risk of the policy should cover the deceased also, who is a casual labour. ( 10 ) THE status of the deceased shall not be decided by virtue of his designation. The test should be as to what was the nature of the job that the deceased was involved in at the relevant time and during the course of employment. Obviously, the deceased was performing the duties other than the clerical. Hence, I am of the considered view that the policy and the benefits thereof shall have to cover the deceased also. ( 11 ) THE other evidence on record need not be gone into inasmuch as the only ground raised by the appellant in this appeal is that the policy does not cover the deceased. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The Civil Miscellaneous appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) IN the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs.