Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 23-12-2004 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; 'Labour Court, Ratlam in W.C.N.F. Case No. 1/2003 whereby claim case filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sustained in a motor-accident which took place on 10-5-2001 was dismissed, present appeal has-been filed. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim case for compensation before the learned Court below alleging that on 10-5-2001 appellant was hired for construction of well by respondents No. 2 and 3 as labourer @ Rs.70/- per day. It was alleged that Lalu/father-in-law of the appellant was also hired as labourer. It was alleged that on 10-5-2001 since the father-in-law of the appellant did not turn-up on his job on account of sickness, therefore, appellant was engaged by respondents No. 2 and 3 as labourer. It was alleged that when the appellant was working at that time appellant fell down in the well which was having a depth of 32 feets with the result appellant sustained grievous injuries. Appellant was brought to Ratlam Hospital where appellant was treated. It was prayed that claim case be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim case was contested by the respondents wherein it was denied that services of the appellant were hired. It was denied that wages were settled as Rs.70/- per day. It was alleged that since the appellant was not engaged by the respondents No. 2 and 3, therefore, claim case be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Court below found that services of the appellant were taken as casual labour which is not covered under the definition of worker under section 2(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act"), therefore, appellant is not entitled for any amount of compensation and dismissed the claim case against which the present appeal has been filed. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that learned Court below committed error in holding that since the appellant was engaged as casual labour, therefore, appellant is not covered under the definition of "worker" under section 2(n) of the Act. It is submitted that learned Court below committed error in holding that since the appellant was engaged as casual labour, therefore, appellant is not covered under the definition of "worker" under section 2(n) of the Act. It is submitted that since the appellant sustained injuries in the said accident when the appellant was working in the employment of respondents No. 2 and 3, therefore, appeal be allowed, order passed by learned Court below be set-aside and adequate compensation be awarded. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submit that after due appreciation of evidence on record learned Court below found that appellant was not in the employment of respondents No. 2. and 3, therefore, learned Court below has rightly dismissed the claim petition. It is submitted that findings recorded by the learned Court below are based on due appreciation of evidence on record which requires no interference, It is submitted that appeal has no force and the same be dismissed. ( 5. ) FROM perusal of record, it appears that to prove the case appellant examined Dr. O. P. Gupta, AW/1, Bhura AW/2 and Kallu AW/3 while in addition appellant has examined himself. Respondents has also examined Virsingh as NAW/1, Dhoolji NAW/2, Lachiram NAW/3. It appears that after due appreciation of evidence on record learned Court below found that appellant sustained injuries in the accident when he was working in the well but it is further found that since the appellant was engaged as casual labour, therefore, respondents are not liable for payment of compensation. Section 2(n) of the Act lays down the definition of workman which is amended from time to time. Relevant part of the definition as it was just before the date of accident reads as under :- (n) "workman" means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is - (i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railway Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or (ii) a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship. ( 6. ) THE Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was amended vide notification Dt. ( 6. ) THE Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was amended vide notification Dt. 18th of December, 2000 whereby, the word "other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer; trade or business" was omitted by the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 2000 (Act No. 46 of 2000) w.e.f. 8th of December, 2000. ( 7. ) IN the present case accident took place on 10-5-2001 in which appellant sustained injuries, therefore, the claim petition could not have been dismissed in view of the amended definition of workman by the learned Court below on the ground that the appellant was casual labour; Even if the appellant was casual workman then too the appellant is entitled for the compensation, as the accident took place on 10-5-2001, i.e. after the amendment of the definition. ( 8. ) SINCE the learned Court below has not assessed the compensation which can be payable to the appellant, therefore, this Court is left with no option except to remand the case. In view of this, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside holding that the appellant was in the employment of respondents No. 2 and 3 on 10-5-2011 and sustained injuries during the course of employment. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as interim compensation. Learned Court below shall get the appellant examined again to assess the disability caused to him and shall decide the amount of compensation. ( 9. ) PARTIES are directed to remain present before the learned Court below on 13-12-2011. Learned Court below shall proceed with the case after securing the presence of the parties. ( 10. ) WITH the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.