JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 14.03.2011 passed in W.C.No.161 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai.) 1. Mr.Sakthivel, the Managing Director / first respondent before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, is the appellant herein. Challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen compensation, Madurai, in W.C.No.161 of 2005 dated 14.03.2011, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The respondents/claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased, namely, Veerasingam and the said deceased was Sugarcane cutting labour leader of the appellant/sugar factory, when he was engaged as labourer by the appellant/sugar factory for cutting the sugarcane, which has to be supplied to the sugar factory. While cutting the sugarcane, he died by snake bite. Since the appellant/first respondent has not paid the compensation due and payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the legal heirs have filed the claim petition before the Commissioner in W.C.No.161 of 2005 and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i) The appellant is a Sugar Mill at Padamathur, Sivagangai District. As per the practice in the industry including the appellant factory, the Ryots enter into a contract with the Sugar Factory for supply of sugarcane. Such Ryots may also act as Harvesting Gang Leaders undertaking the work of cutting sugarcane in the sugar fields of third parties. These Gang Leaders' employ required manpower for cutting sugarcane. These Gang Leaders are registered with the petitioner Factory and they are issued identity cards, to ensure their identity for receiving payments in respect of cutting job done by them. (ii) The Ryots are not employees of the appellant. Similarly, the Gang leaders are also not employees of the appellant. The Ryots and Gang Leaders are involved in plantation and cutting of sugarcane which normally takes 11 months to 13 months. (iii) One Veerasingam, a Ryot, residing at Avarangadu Village, Manamadurai, Taluk, situated about 10 to 15 KMs away from the petitioner's factory, was also acting as a Gang Leader. (iv) During the season commencing from October, 2003 to September, 2004, the appellant entered into an agreement with the said Veerasingam on 28th March, 2003. (iii) One Veerasingam, a Ryot, residing at Avarangadu Village, Manamadurai, Taluk, situated about 10 to 15 KMs away from the petitioner's factory, was also acting as a Gang Leader. (iv) During the season commencing from October, 2003 to September, 2004, the appellant entered into an agreement with the said Veerasingam on 28th March, 2003. As per the said agreement, the said Veerasingam agreed to give sugarcane to the appellant in respect of Survey No.280/2, Maranadu Village. The said land belonged to Veeramuthu, which had been leased to the said Veerasingam. (v) On 24.02.2004, while Veerasingam was cutting sugarcane in his field in Survey No.280/2, Maranadu Village, unfortunately, he was bitten by a poisonous snake. It would also appear that in spite of medical treatment, he expired on 27.02.2004. (vi) The first respondent herein, the wife of deceased Veera singam and her children filed an application under Section 15 of the W.C. Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, stating that her husband was employed as contract labour by the petitioner; that his duty was cutting sugarcane in various fields and send them to the petitoner Factory; that he was the President of the Contract Labour Union; that on 24.02.2004, in pursuing his duty of cutting of sugarcane to the petitioner Factory, he was bitten by a poisonous snake in the sugar filed and that he expired on 27.02.2004. (vii) The deceased was an employee of the petitioner and he died due to the accident in the course of and arising out of empolyment with the petitioner. Then, the application was numbered as W.C.No.161 of 2005. (xiii) The appellant filed a counter statment contending that the deceased Veerasignam was one of the ryots who supplied sugarcane to the appellant; that he was also acting as a Gang Leader undertaking cutting of the sugarcane in the sugar filed of various ryots and that on 24.02.2004, while he was cutting the sugarcane in the sugar field of ryot bose, he was bitten by a poisonous snake and subsequently, expired. (ix) According to appellant/Sugar Factory there was no employeremployee relationship between the deceased Veerasingam and the appellant and that the application filed by the first rspondent is not maintainable; that deceased Veerasingam was not an employee within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the W.C. Act; that the employment of the deceased was not covered within the scope of Section IV of Workmen Compensation Act and that therefore, the application was not maintainable. (x) 1st respondent, thereafter, filed an application to implead the Ryot Bose, who filed an answer statement contending that the sugar cane cut was completed in his filed by 21.04.2004 itself and that therefore, he was not a necessary party for impleading. (xi) The deceased Veerasingam was working in the 5th respondent field in Survey No.280/2, Maranadu Village, which was leased to him by one Veeramuthu, when he met with snake bite and expired. (xii) The petitioner marked Exhibits M1 to M7. Exhibits M3 is the copy of the agreement and form of offer to sell sugarcane which denote that the deceased was a ryot agreeing to supply of sugarcane to the petitioner, for the sugar season 2003-2004. Ex.M7 is the lease agreement showing that the deceased was the riot in respect of Survey No.280/2. Exhibit P1 is the FIR which clearly shows that the deceased Veerasignam who was bitten by snake while he was cutting sugar cane. (xiii) On behalf of appellant, M.Thirumalai Muthu, Assistant Manager (Cane) was examined. The 2nd respondent examined herself and also brother-in-law of the deceased Veerasingam. The 2nd respondent documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The 5th respondent examined himself and also filed Ex.R1. 4. The main contention of the appellant/sugar factory before the Commissioner is that the deceased was not in employment of the appellant and hence, the claim petition is not maintainable; rejecting the said contention, the Commissioner has held that while the deceased was cutting the sugarcane, the deceased was bitten by the snake. Hence, there is a employer - employee relationship and consequently, held that the claim petition is maintainable. 5. Head both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. This Court, at the time of admitting the above appeal has formulated the following substantial questions of law: ''1. Whether the deceased Veerasingam falls within the definition of Workman, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) (ii) of the Workmen Compensation Act? 2. 5. Head both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. This Court, at the time of admitting the above appeal has formulated the following substantial questions of law: ''1. Whether the deceased Veerasingam falls within the definition of Workman, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) (ii) of the Workmen Compensation Act? 2. Whether the deceased Veerasingam employed in sugar cane crushing, within the meaning of Entry XLVI Schedule II of the Workmen Compensation Act, so as to enable the claimants 1 to 4 to make any claim for compensation? 3. Whether the death of Veerasingam-Cane grower can be construed as due to any accident arising within and in the course of employment with the petitioner within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act.?'' 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased had not died during employee-employer relationship at the time of the accident and the snake bite during sugar cane cutting would not be termed as during the course of employment and the same is taken place at the sugar filed. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants replied that since he died by snake bite in the sugar filed, he is entitled for the compensation and also prayed for interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident. 9. This Court perused the documents filed before the Commissioner for workmen compensation. As per Exs.P1, P2, P3 and P4, which would clearly show that the deceased died due to the snake bite in the sugar filed. Ex.P5 is the identity card issued by the appellant/sugar factory and the deceased was the team leader for the sugar cutting team and Ex.P6 is the work order issued by the appellant/sugar factory to the deceased to cut the sugar cane in the filed of the second respondent before the Commissioner (5th respondent herein) and Exs.P7 and P8 are the bank pass books that would show and demonstrate that the appellant/sugar factory has remitted charges for sugar cutting team leader, namely, Veerasingam(the deceased) and necessary entries are found therein. Based upon Exs.P5, 6 and 7, I could find that there is a clear employee-employer relationship between the deceased and the appellant herein/sugar factory. 10. Based upon Exs.P5, 6 and 7, I could find that there is a clear employee-employer relationship between the deceased and the appellant herein/sugar factory. 10. Records reveals that Ex.P5/identity card issued by the appellant factory and Ex.P6 is the work order for cutting the sugarcane in the sugar field and for previous cutting of sugarcane in the other lands and amount has been paid by the appellant to the deceased as would be seen from Ex.P7 and Ex.P8/passbook of deceased Veera Singam and hence, I find that the deceased was the employee of the appellant/sugar factory and he was engaged in cutting the sugar filed in Survey No.280/2, Maranadu Village. As per Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P5, he had bitten by the poisonous snake and died only due to the snake bite in the filed while cutting the sugarcane in the sugar filed. 11. The main contention of the appellant/sugar factory is that the place where he was cutting the sugar cane is not covered by Ex.P6 and relied upon the snap answer by P.W.1 in the cross -examination. (A1). When the claim petition was filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the claim petitioner has to satisfy whether the deceased person was working in a “schedule employment” and the claim petitioners fall “within the definition of the workmen” and in order to get an eligible compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the deceased person should have been working in a “schedule employment” as per the classification as schedule industry. (A2). The sugarcane cutting is done outside of the factory premises of the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of the alleged accident, the deceased person was not working inside the sugar factory and he was working in the filed of 5th respondent herein and therefore, it is not inside of the factory premises of the appellant. (A3). The crucial question is that at the time of the accident, the deceased person employed in sugarcane cutting since he died out of snake bite in the sugar cane filed. It is the admitted case of the parties that the deceased was the leader of the sugarcane cutting team and he employed more than 10 persons to cut the sugarcane in the filed of the fifth respondent herein. It is the admitted case of the parties that the deceased was the leader of the sugarcane cutting team and he employed more than 10 persons to cut the sugarcane in the filed of the fifth respondent herein. On the date he met with an accident, merely because the deceased person was working in a sugarcane filed, then he was bitten by the snake and the same cannot be excluded from the definition of the “accident arising out of” or “in the course of employment”. It remains to be stated that it is during the course of employment when the deceased was in engagement of the work as per the orders of the appellant/sugar cane factory and during the work entrusted to him in cutting the sugarcane, he was engaged in the filed where he met the fateful day and hence, I have no hesitation to hold that on the facts and circumstances as demonstrated from the evidence, the accident stated by the P.W.1 falls within the definition of the accident arisen out of /in the course of employment and accordingly, I uphold the said contention by the claim petitioner. 12. It is needless to say that the deceased Veerasingam who was working in Survey No.280/2, Maranadu Village, belongs to the fifth respondent herein and he was engaged in cutting the sugarcane for the supply of the sugar factory. The place, where he was engaged, is during the course of employment and hence, the snake bite while engaging in sugarcane cutting is arisen out of the accident in the course of employment as defined under Section 3(1) of the workmen compensation Act. Furthermore, he was engaged by the appellant factory and activity carried on falls within the meaning of the Entry XI (6 ) under the Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act and in view of the discussion in the proceeding paragraphs, the employer and employee relationship, the deceased Veerasingam falls within the definition of the Workmen as under Section 2(i)(n)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 13. 13. Hence, I find that the finding rendered by the Workmen Commissioner is just and fair and he has placed relied upon the evidence adduced by the parties though the place of accident being the sugar filed and bitten by the poisonous snake, it is during the course of the employment and hence, the accident had taken place during the course of the employment. It clearly falls within Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and accordingly, I find that the similar finding arrived at by the Commissioner as stated supra, is hereby confirmed. The calculation and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed . 14. On the point of levy of interest, he relied upon the judgment in Civil Appeal No.1860 of 2020 dated 11.03.2022 in the case of Shobha and others Vs.The Chairman, Vithalarao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and others and the relevant paragraphs are extracted here under”- ''Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation would arise from the date on which the deceased died for which he is entitled to the compensation and therefore, the liability to pay the interest on the amount of arrears/compensation shall be from the date of accident and not from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner. Thus, provision for interest and provision for penalty are different. As observed hereinabove, the provision for levy of interest would be under Section 4A(3)(a) and the provision for levy of penalty would be under Section 4A(3) (b).'' 15. The claim petitioners are entitled to get the interest at 12% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Commissioner and the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant herein and in favour of the respondents herein. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to get the interest at 12% per annum on the amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner from the date of the accident and hence, I find no merit in this appeal and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant, is dismissed with the above observations. No Costs.