Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(n) – Constable of a RPF if a “Workman” u/s.2(1)(n), despite RPF being declared as an armed force of the Union – Claim under the 1923 Act if barred in view of alternative remedy under Railways Act, 1989:
Held: Mere declaration in s.3, 1957 Act that the RPF shall be an “armed force of the Union” is not sufficient to take it out of the purview of the 1923 Act – Thus, despite declaring RPF as an armed force of the Union, the legislative intent was not to exclude its members or their heirs from the benefits of compensation payable under the 1923 Act or the 1989 Act – Thus, in the present case, the claim set up by the claimants-respondents under the 1923 Act was maintainable – Further, according to s.128, Railways Act, 1989, notwithstanding the right to claim compensation u/s.124 or s.124-A of the 1989 Act, the right of a person to claim compensation under the 1923 Act, or any other law for the time being in force, is specifically saved subject to the condition that he shall not be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident – In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the respondents’ claim under the 1923 Act was made after receiving compensation for the same accident under any other Act or law – Hence, the application under the 1923 Act was not barred on account of there being an alternative remedy under the 1989 Act – Appeal lacks merit – The Indian Railways Act, 1890 – Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 – ss.2(1)(a), 3, 10, 19 – Act No. 60 of 1985. [Paras 58, 62-64] Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – ss.2(1)(e), 2(1)(n)(i) and
3 – Railways Act, 1989 – s.2(34):
Held: The 1923 Act as it stood at the relevant time (i.e., the date of the accident out of which the claim arose) was an Act to provide for the payment by certain class of employers to their workman, compensation for injury by accident – s.3, 1923 Act, as it stood at the time of the accident in question, provided that if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provision of Chapter II of the 1923 Act – “Employer” is defined in s.2(1)(e) wherein by use of the phrase “any body of persons whether incorporated or not” the legislative intent is clear as to include a juristic person whether incorporated or not – However, to maintain a claim against an “employer” under the 1923 Act, there must be a workman and an employer relationship; the workman must suffer personal injury in an accident; and that accident must arise out of and in the course of his employment – At the time of the accident in question, “workman” was defined by s.2(1)(n), 1923 Act – Workman meant any one of the persons specified in s.2(1)(n) (i), (ia) and (ii), 1923 Act; but would not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union – Further, the definition of a “Railway Servant” as contained in s.2(34), 1989 Act was amended by which, notwithstanding that from 20.09.1985 the RPF was declared an armed force of the Union, the definition of a Railway Servant included a member of the RPF – Thus, since a railway servant continued to be a workman as per s.2(1)(n)(i), 1923 Act, the provisions of the 1923 Act would continue to apply to a member of the RPF as he does not belong to any of those categories specified in Schedule II of the 1923 Act – More so, when there is nothing in the Railways Act, either new or old, which may exclude the applicability of the 1923 Act on a railway servant – Constitution of India – Articles 372(2), 366 – Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 – ss.3, 10, 19. [Paras 51-54 and 59] Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 – s.19 – Applicability of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 not excluded:
Held: Though s.19 declared that nothing contained in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Factories Act, 1948 or any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial dispute in force in a State shall apply to members of the Force (RPF), there is no exclusion of the applicability of the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. [Para 60]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Union of India v. Sri Harananda (2019) 14 SCC 126; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC
49 : [2016] 1 SCR 1; Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527 : [2008] 7 SCR 673; Ramesh Birch and others v. Union of India and others (1989) 1 Suppl. SCC 430 : [1989] 2 SCR
629 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.