 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 62 10.29. Item 2.- We now come to item 21. It has been held in a Bombay case2 that it is not necessary under item 2 that the deceased should be working in the manufacturing process itself. It is enough if he is working in the premises where persons are employed in a manufacturing process, and if the deceased is employed in those premises otherwise than in a clerical capacity. Thus, a night watchman employed to keep watch on the premises of a pumping station3, was held to fall within item 2, since he was employed in premises which satisfied the conditions of item 2. 1. Item 2 is quoted in para. 10.31, infra. 2. Laxmibai v. Bombay Port Trust, AIR 1954 Born 180, para. 3. 3. Pumping is a manufacturing process. 10.30. It may be useful to codify the above interpretation.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back