' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 28-1-1986 recorded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bahawalpur, whereby the petition of the appellant for compensation for the loss of the life of her son Muhammad Arshad was dismissed.
2. Admittedly at the time the accident took place the deceased with some others was on the Suzuki Van of respondent No,
1. The case of the appellant is that the deceased as a conductor on Suzuki Van of respondent No, 1 and since he was on duty at the time he met with an accident, resulting in his death, she is entitled to the compensation of Rs,15,000 under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
On the other hand the case of the respondents is that they do the business of sale of newspapers and that the newspapers were carried and distributed on the Suzuki Van which was driven by Zahoor Ahmad Shah, Driver, and that the deceased was off duty and in order to have an outing had gone on the Suzuki Van which was going to Loharka. None of the respondents came in the witness-box. Faiz Ali Shah (R.W. 4) who described himself as Attorney of the respondents, deposed that the deceased used to bring the bundles of newspapers from the post office, to withdraw cash from the Bank and to do household work and that he never worked as a conductor. Needless to say that the conductors work on the buses which carry passengers. According to Zahoor Ahmad Shah, Driver, luggage was also loaded on the vagon and at the time the accident had taken place, the vagon was returning after leaving the household luggage of a person. The driver did not say that the deceased had gone with him only for on outing. Jafar Ali (P.W. 2) too did not say that the deceased had gone to Loharka only for an outing. Likewise Faiz Ali Shah and Abdul Haq (P.Ws.) did not say so. It is thus apparent that none of the witnesses supported the plea of the respondent taken in the written statement. Since admittedly the deceased was on the Suzuki Van belonging to the respondents and the accident resulted in his death and further that the van had gone to Loharka for transporting the household luggage of a person, the inference is irresistible that the deceased was on duty and had gone on the van in order to load and unload the luggage carried on it. The time of accident is such that it is not believable that the deceased at that time was off duty. The time of accident is said to be 9 a.m. Which usually is the duty hours of every worker. The evidence produced by the appellant is to the effect that the deceased used to bring bundles of newspapers and other articles such as glass and cloth. It is, therefore, clear that the deceased had been employed for the business of the respondents and from the evidence produced by the appellant as alleged by the respondents, it is clear that at the time of accident he was on duty. No doubt, the witnesses examined by the appellant deposed that they had never seen the vehicle at any taxi stand but it does not mean that the vehicle was not used for transporting the luggage of the people on hire.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the deceased does not come within the definition of workman and thus his mother is not entitled to any compensation. The definition of workman is given in section 2(n) read with Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act. According to the definition, that person is not workman whose employment is of casual nature or who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of employer's trade or business. The other condition is that his wages should not exceed Rs,1,000 and he should have been employed in any capacity as specified in Schedule II. The evidence is that the wages of the deceased were Rs,750.
This is not the case of the respondents that the deceased was a casual worker. As discussed above, the deceased was employed for the business and trade of the respondents which was sale and distribution of newspapers and transportation of luggage of the people on hire. So far as Schedule II is concerned, the transportation of luggage is covered by clause (xxviii) read with section 2(7) of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1%1. Clause (xxviii) reads as under:-- "Employed as driver, cleaner, conductor and checker by road transport service as defined in subsection (7) of section 2 of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961."
' Section 2, subsection (7) of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 reads as under:-- ' Road Transport Service' means a service carrying passengers or goods or both by road in vehicles for hire or reward."
' But it is apparent from clause (xxviii) of Schedule H that only drivers, cleaners, conductors and checkers are covered by the clause. The conductors are employed to issue tickets, to invite passengers to board the bus and to stop the bus in order to allow passengers to get down from the bus at their destination. The vehicles which carry luggage do not require the services of any conductor. This is not the case of the parties that the van was being used for transportation of passengers. It appears that the deceased used to accompany the driver on the van in order to load and unload the luggage. Since the person employed for loading and unloading luggage is not covered by clause (xxviii), the deceased was not covered by the definition of workman given in the Workmen's Compensation Act and in these circumstances the petition of the appellant brought under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was rightly disallowed.
4. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.