Om Parkash Batish vs Ranjit @ Ranbir Kaur And Others

The Supreme Court addressed whether a casual employee, specifically Ram Lal, qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(n) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The Court held that the definition of 'workman' does not extend to casual employees engaged for limited periods, particularly when the employment relationship is not established. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision that the application for compensation was not maintainable, affirming the findings of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner.