JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants-non-applicants have filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the order dated 22.08.1998 of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Kota in Claim No. 51/1992 by which the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 70,216/- to the respondents- applicants as compensation in respect of an accident resulting in death of Abdul Gaffar. 2. The brief facts are that Abdul Gaffar (deceased), husband of respondent No. 2 and father of respondents No. 2 to 8 and son of respondent No. 1 was employed by Motarmal father of appellants for construction of the house of the appellants. On 30.01.1992 when Abdul Gaffar was constructing the door of the bathroom, the roof fell down as a result of which Abdul Gaffar received very serious and fatal injuries which ultimately resulted in his death on 21.02.1992. The respondents filed an application before the Commissioner for awarding of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on account of death of Abdul Gaffar. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act. The deceased was a casual worker not employed for the purpose of employer's trade or business and is not entitled to any compensation. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in 2006(1) WLC (SC) Civil 544 : 2006 ACJ 521 , Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. v. Ramu Pasi & Anr. in which it was held that a casual worker not employed for the purpose of employer's trade or business is not a workman within the definition of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act and his claim was not maintainable before the Commissioner. 4. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that the Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that the deceased was a workman employed with the appellants within the purview of the Act and the compensation has been rightly awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased. Learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in AIR 1961 Raj. 45 , Madan Lal v. Mangali in which the deceased was employed as a labourer in connection with the construction of the house who was held to be a workman in view of Article (viii) of Schedule II of the Act. 5. Learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in AIR 1961 Raj. 45 , Madan Lal v. Mangali in which the deceased was employed as a labourer in connection with the construction of the house who was held to be a workman in view of Article (viii) of Schedule II of the Act. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record of the case and the impugned order. 6. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to take note of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant period of time. At that time, Section 2(1)(n) of the Act read as follows:- "Section 2(1)(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 Section 3 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), 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) employed on monthly wages not exceeding (one thousand rupees) in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II. Whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of (the Armed Forces of the Union) and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, whether the workman is dead included a reference to his defendants or any of them." 7. The Schedule II of the Act specifies various capacities in which the employment of the workmen will bring them within the category of definition. It is relevant to quote Article (viii) of Schedule II which provides that a person is a workman who is employed in the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of any building which is designed to be or is or has been more than one storey in height above the ground or twelve feet or more from the ground level to the apex of the roof. 8. 8. The applicants-respondents Bismillah and Abdul Rauph have stated i in their statements that on 30.01.1992 Abdul Gaffar was working in the house of Motarmal and was constructing the door of the bathroom when the roof fell down as a result of which Abdul Gaffar and Motarmal received fatal injuries. The third witness Zakir Hussain who was working nearby has stated 5 that Abdul Gaffar was working in the house of Motarmal and was constructing the door of the bathroom which was located on the roof of the house. The roof fell down as a result of which Abdul Gaffar and Motarmal were crushed under the debris and Motarmal died on the spot. 9. That the non-applicant-appellant No. 3 - Khem Chand who is the son i of deceased Motarmal has denied in his statement that Abdul Gaffar was employed by them and they had not constructed the bathroom in the upper portion of the house However, it is clear from his cross-examination that three rooms are constructed on the upper portion of their house and has admitted that his father Motarmal died on 30.01.1992 and the roof of the 1 house had fallen on that day. He has also admitted that the FIR Exhibit-1 in Die portion A to B relates to the details regarding his father. 10. Thus, it is evident from the statements of the witnesses that Abdul Gaffar was constructing the door of the bathroom of the building owned by Motarmal and as per statement of appellant No. 3 Khem Chand, the building had three rooms on the first floor which clearly leads to the inference that the building in connection with the construction answers to the description given in the Article (viii) of Schedule II and obviously the status of Abdul Gaffar as a workman cannot be disputed in the nature of employment. Abdul Gaffar even if employed on daily wages basis for a single day would fall within the definition of workman. 11. Therefore, it is held that the claimant-respondents were entitled to maintain the claim petition before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner and the learned Commissioner was justified in awarding the aforesaid compensation. 12. Thus, the impugned order dated 22.08.1998 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Kota does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no interference is warranted in this appeal. 13. 12. Thus, the impugned order dated 22.08.1998 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Kota does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no interference is warranted in this appeal. 13. The appeal, therefore, lacks in merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 14. The stay petition also stand dismissed. *******