Important Point: The object of the Act of 1977 is merely to make effective provision for securing the right to work by guaranteeing employment to all adult persons who volunteer to do unskilled manual work in rural areas in the State of Maharashtra.and the object of the Act of 1923 is to provide for payment of compensation by certain classes of employers to their employees on account of injury by accident. Both would operate in different fields.

1. Admit. Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, learned counsel, waives notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5.

2. Following Substantial Question of Law arises for consideration in this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 :-

“Whether the provisions of Section 7(2)(xiv) of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977, would override the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, in the matter of grant of compensation so as to dis-entitle the claimants from seeking compensation under provisions of Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923?”

3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that it is the case of respondent nos. 2 to 5 that Ganesh Kakar, husband of respondent no.2, was employed with the Social Forestry Division, Buldhana. He was engaged for doing the work of planting trees, digging pits, watering plants etc. at Taluka Motala. He was paid wages at the rate of Rs.127/- per day. On 20th December, 2011, said Ganesh during the course of employment met with an accident when the tractor in which he was travelling fell in a pit and overturned. Said Ganesh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. This gave rise to filing of proceedings for grant of compensation under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 [for short, “the Act of 1923”]. In the reply filed by the appellants, it was stated that deceased Ganesh was employed as a labour by the Social Forestry Department under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. It was then stated that the family of the deceased was paid Rs.50,000-00 as ex gratia amount on 17th May, 2012 and, therefore, the application for compensation under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 was not maintainable.

4. The learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation considering the evidence led by the parties held that deceased Ganesh was employed by the appellants as a labour. The amount of compensation was thereafter determined at Rs.4,19,004.75. The amount of Rs.50,000-00 paid as ex gratia compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards urgent economic help were deducted from the aforesaid amount and the claim for compensation came to be allowed on 31st July, 2013. The application for review filed by the appellants came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

5. Mrs. M. Naik, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the appellants, submitted that as the respondent nos. 2 to 5 were paid an amount of Rs.60,000-00 being ex gratia compensation, the claim for compensation under the Act of 1923 was not maintainable. It was submitted that the ex gratia payment was made in view of provisions of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 [for short, “the Act of 1977”]. Section 16 of the Act of 1977 had an overriding effect over the provisions of the Act of 1923 and hence the learned Commissioner was not justified in awarding compensation under the Act of 1923. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5, supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that Section 7(2)(xiv) of the Act of 1977 would not have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Act of 1923 in the matter of grant of compensation, inasmuch as there was nothing inconsistent in the Act of 1923 with the provisions of the Act of 1977. According to him, both the said statutes operated in separate fields and hence there was no question of any repugnancy between the provisions of the Act of 1977 and the Act of 1923 in that matter. Referring to the preamble of the Act of 1977, it was submitted that said Act merely intended to make effective provisions for securing the right to work by guaranteeing employment in the State. The Act of 1977 did not contain any provision for grant of compensation to the persons covered by it nor was any forum or mechanism prescribed for redressal of grievances in that regard. Under p