JUDGMENT : (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company calling in question the judgment and award dated 13.11.2012 passed in WCA/CR-26/2010-F by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Udupi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) on the ground that the deceased was working as ‘Supervisor’ at the relevant point of time, but not as ‘workman’ to be coming within the definition of ‘workman’ under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Heard the arguments addressed by both the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 4. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was an employee under the second respondent employer working in the goods lorry bearing registration No.KA-20B-2962 as loader. On 09.11.2008 as per the direction of the second respondent employer the deceased was traveling in the said lorry towards Shivamogga and suddenly met with an accident and deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the petitioner filed the claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, (hereinafter referred to as WC Act, for short). Learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.4,30,560/- (Rupees Four Lakh Thirty Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty only) fastening liability on the appellant Insurance Company by holding that the deceased was ‘workman’ coming within the definition of the WC Act. 5. The Insurance Company has challenged the said order and award on the ground that when the accident was taken place on 09.11.2008, the deceased was working as ‘Supervisor’, but not ‘loader cum unloader’ and the ‘Supervisor’ was not a workman under the definition of Workmen’s Compensation Act (before amendment). Later in the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (after amendment) the ‘Supervisor’ is also categorized as ‘workman’, but at the relevant point of time on 09.11.2008 (before amendment) the deceased was supervisor, hence, not a workman under the WC Act. Therefore, submitted the claim petition is not maintainable and the award is not correct. 6. Later in the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (after amendment) the ‘Supervisor’ is also categorized as ‘workman’, but at the relevant point of time on 09.11.2008 (before amendment) the deceased was supervisor, hence, not a workman under the WC Act. Therefore, submitted the claim petition is not maintainable and the award is not correct. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the first respondent claimant submitted that the deceased was working as a loader cum unloader in the lorry belonging to the second respondent and it is correctly held as per the evidence revealed and therefore, justified the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner and hence prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. In the present case, the claimant has stated that the deceased was working as a coolie and as a loader in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-20B-2962 under the employment of the second respondent. In the claim petition it is stated that the deceased was working as a loader. Further in the evidence in chief examination the claimant being examined as PW.1 has stated that the deceased was working as a loader. But the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company while relying on the admission made in the cross examination of PW.1 that the deceased was working as supervisor, therefore, submitted that the supervisor is not coming within the definition of workman under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (erstwhile Act before incorporating the word as employee to the WC Act). Therefore, on the admission of PW.1 in his cross examination it is argued that the deceased was working as supervisor. Hence submitted claim petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the award is not correct. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 8. Upon considering the claim petition and evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is deposed that the deceased was working as a loader cum unloader. PW.2 is the employer of the deceased. He has categorically deposed in the evidence that the deceased was working under him as a loader in the lorry and PW.2 is doing the business of transportation of fish. Therefore, in the complaint it is stated that the deceased was working as a loader under the employment of the second respondent. PW.2 is the employer of the deceased. He has categorically deposed in the evidence that the deceased was working under him as a loader in the lorry and PW.2 is doing the business of transportation of fish. Therefore, in the complaint it is stated that the deceased was working as a loader under the employment of the second respondent. In the course of cross examination also PW.1 has stated that the deceased was working as a loader, but at the same time, PW.1 has stated that her son, the deceased was also working as supervisor. Therefore, based on the stray admission as supervisor, submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable. The aspect regarding the case whether deceased was working as loader or supervisor, the nature of job is to be considered, but not its nomenclature. It is proved that the deceased has studied upto 9th standard. PW.2 employer has stated that the deceased was working as a loader in his lorry. Just because PW.1 in cross examination has made a stray admission that the deceased was working as supervisor, that is not a decisive factor to hold the nature of job of the deceased. PW.1 might have stated in the cross examination that deceased was working as supervisor, but upon considering the entire evidence both examination in chief and cross examination, it is proved that the nature of the deceased is loader cum unloader. When the employer instructs his employee also to look after the goods, it means the coolie working in the lorry, also while discharging duty as coolie was looking after the goods amounts to making supervision of the goods. Just because a coolie worker makes supervision of goods in the transit that cannot make him as a supervisor, but fundamentally he is a coolie cum loader. The employer cannot send two persons, one as a loader and another as supervisor. Therefore, here the nature of job decides in what capacity the deceased was working. 9. Just because a coolie worker makes supervision of goods in the transit that cannot make him as a supervisor, but fundamentally he is a coolie cum loader. The employer cannot send two persons, one as a loader and another as supervisor. Therefore, here the nature of job decides in what capacity the deceased was working. 9. Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (before Amendment) defines as follows: “2(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 Railways 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 (i-a) (a) a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship, (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft; (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle; (d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India, or (ii) employed [x x x x x] [x x x x x] 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 [x x x x x]; and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them.” 10. Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 was omitted by the Act 45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010 and inserted Section 2(dd) “employee” after Section 2(d). Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 was omitted by the Act 45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010 and inserted Section 2(dd) “employee” after Section 2(d). Section 2(dd) “employee” of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, defines as follows: “2(dd) “employee” means a person, who is– (i) a railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways 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) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship, (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft, (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle, (d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India; or (iii) employed 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 any employee who has been injured shall, where the employee is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them;” 11. In the present case, it is argued that PW.1 - father of deceased has admitted in the course of cross-examination that his son deceased was working as Supervisor, but the Supervisor was not categorized as ‘Workman’ under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Since in the present case the accident is caused before the Amendment Act, it is argued that the claim petition is not maintainable. The word ‘employee’ is having a wider meaning than the ‘workman’. While deciding whether a person is ‘workman’ or not, the nomenclature is not a criteria but the nature of job is determining factor to categorize him as a ‘workman’. Here in the present case the deceased was working as a loader cum unloader and the basic job of the deceased is loader cum unloader. While deciding whether a person is ‘workman’ or not, the nomenclature is not a criteria but the nature of job is determining factor to categorize him as a ‘workman’. Here in the present case the deceased was working as a loader cum unloader and the basic job of the deceased is loader cum unloader. When the deceased was going along with the goods as loader cum unloader naturally he could supervise the load, but that does not mean that the deceased was working as a Supervisor. Therefore, considering the nature of job of the deceased as he was working as loader and unloader, he comes under the definition of ‘workman’ as enshrined under Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, learned Commissioner is correct in holding that the deceased is a ‘workman’ and accordingly granting compensation, which needs no interference. 12. Therefore, it is proved that the deceased was working as a loader cum unloader in the lorry under the employment of respondent No.2. Therefore, the deceased is coming within the definition of workman under the WC Act, 1923. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the deceased was workman and accordingly granted compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 13. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal. 14. The balance amount, if any to be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company, is directed to be deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.