The wide amplitude of the definition of 'employer' and the amendment's impact on the definition of 'workman' under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, emphasizing the need to avoid hyper-technical interpretation to ensure expeditious compensation for victims.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. By this appeal filed under Section 30 (1)(c) of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant seeks to set aside the order dated 04.11.2009 whereby the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,63,630/-in favour of the claimant Smt. Dayawati/respondent herein towards death compensation of the deceased Bhikam Singh @ Jagdish besides awarding a sum of Rs 2,500/-towards funeral charges in terms of Section 4(4) of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that on 04.05.2004, the present appellant engaged one contractor named Saleem to do some repairs and alterations in his shop bearing No.A-94, Kamla Nagar, Delhi and for doing the said job the said contractor brought some labourers alongwith him and the deceased Bhikam Singh @ Jagdish was one of the labourers employed by him to carry out the said job. That on 08.05.2004, the deceased Bhikam Singh @ Jagdish was on his duty as a labourer at the said premises owned by the appellant when he alongwith other labourers was removing a partition wall, portion of the said wall fell on the deceased Bhikam Singh @ Jagdish as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries all over his body. The deceased was immediately taken to Sanjeevan Hospital, Roop Nagar, Delhi but his life could not be saved and he ultimately succumbed to the said injuries. Post Mortem of the body was conducted at Asaf Ali Government Hospital Mortuary, Delhi. FIR No.140/2004 dated 8.5.2004 was registered at the police station Roop Nagar u/s 288/304-A/34 IPC. After the death of Bhikham Singh @ Jagdish the dependent members of the deceased had approached the Commissioner under section 4 of The Workmen’s Compensation Act to claim compensation of Rs.3,34,690/-from the appellant. After having served the legal notice dated 27.12.2004 upon the appellant herein, the said claim petition filed by the respondent was contested by the appellant and the main ground taken by the appellant before the Commissioner was that the deceased Bhikam Singh @ Jagdish was not their employee as his services were engaged by the contractor Saleem and, therefore, the appellant had no liability to make any payment towards the compensation amount. The other plea taken by the appellant was that the workman was a casual worker and was not employed for the trade and business of the appellant and, therefore, also the appellant had no liability to pay any compensation amount in favour of the dependent members of the deceased. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner had framed issues and both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions and vide orders dated 04.11.2009 the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs 2,63,630/-towards compensation amount on account of the said death of Jagdish. The learned Commissioner had also awarded a sum of Rs 2,500/-towards funeral expenses in terms of Section 4(4) of the said Act. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Assailing the said order, learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that the said labourer Jagdish was never employed by the appellant and, therefore, he does not fall in the definition of “Workman” as defined under Section 2(1) (n) of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant also disputed the identity of Jagdish and averred that the said labourer gave his name as Jagdish when rushed to the hospital and not Bhikham Singh, which was the name of the deceased as per the respondents. In support of his arguments, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(i) Mangala Ben –vs-Dalip Motwani, 1998 LLR 656;

(ii) Lakshminarayan Shetty –vs-Shantha & Anr., 2001(4) SCALE, 449

(iii) Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. –vs-Ramu Pasi and Anr., VIII (2005) SLT 950;

(iv) Om Prakash Batish –vs-Ranjit @ Ranbir Kaur & Ors, JT 2008(5) SC 443;

(v)