Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anish Dayal, J.
Sh. Raj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 5099 of 2019 & CM APPL. 22580 of 2019
Decided On : 20-12-2023
Employees' Compensation Act - Recovery Notice - Section 22, Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161, Cr.P.C. - Section 30, Employees' Compensation Act - Section 4, Employees' Compensation Act - Section 4A, Employees' Compensation Act - Section 162, Cr.P.C. - Section 161, Cr.P.C. - Rule 41, Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 - U.P. State Spinning Company Ltd. v. R. S. Pandey and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 264 - Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5654/2019 dated 29th July, 2019 - Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 956/2009 - Manju Sarkar & Ors. v. Mabish Miah & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 21 - North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha Civil Appeal No.7470/2009 decided on 2nd November, 2018 - Naresh Kumar v. Sh. Jawahar Singh & Anr. LPA No. 80/2009 - Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak (1969) 2 SCC 607 - Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata & Anr. (1976) 1 SCC 289 - Chiman Surakhia Vasava v. Ahmed Musa Ustad & Ors. 1986 SCC OnLine Guj 4 - Khatri and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 2 SCC 493 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Thankappan 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 278 - Manju Sarkar & Ors. v. Mabish Miah & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 21 - Employees' Compensation Act - Recovery Notice - Section 22, Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161, Cr.P.C. - Section 30, Employees' Compensation Act - Section 4, Employees' Compensation Act - Section 4A, Employees' Compensation Act - Section 162, Cr.P.C. - Section 161, Cr.P.C. - Rule 41, Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 - U.P. State Spinning Company Ltd. v. R. S. Pandey and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 264 - Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5654/2019 dated 29th July, 2019 - Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 956/2009 - Manju Sarkar & Ors. v. Mabish Miah & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 21 - North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha Civil Appeal No.7470/2009 decided on 2nd November, 2018 - Naresh Kumar v. Sh. Jawahar Singh & Anr. LPA No. 80/2009 - Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak (1969) 2 SCC 607 - Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata & Anr. (1976) 1 SCC 289 - Chiman Surakhia Vasava v. Ahmed Musa Ustad & Ors. 1986 SCC OnLine Guj 4 - Khatri and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 2 SCC 493 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Thankappan 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 278 - Manju Sarkar & Ors. v. Mabish Miah & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 21
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 for the death of Mr. Akbar Ali, who was employed as a loader for M/s. Patliputra Transport Agency and died in a work-related accident. The Commissioner awarded compensation to the claimants, leading to recovery proceedings against the petitioner, who denied being the employer of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was indeed the employer of the deceased and that the deceased's death occurred during the course of his employment. The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the recovery notice, holding the petitioner liable for the compensation awarded to the claimants.
Issues: The issues included the identity of the petitioner, the employer-employee relationship with the deceased, the maintainability of the writ petition, and the determination of whether the deceased's death occurred during the course of his employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the employer-employee relationship based on statements of co-workers and the petitioner's own statements. It also addressed the maintainability of the writ petition and the interpretation of 'during the course of employment' under the Employees' Compensation Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the recovery notice, holding the petitioner liable for the compensation awarded to the claimants.
JUDGMENT
Anish Dayal, J.
1. This petition has been filed seeking stay on operation of the impugned recovery notice dated 2nd August, 2013 issued by respondent no.1 (Commissioner, Employees' Compensation Act, 1932) initiating proceedings for recovery of Rs.7,88,240/- from the petitioner herein. The said recovery notice was issued pursuant to an order dated 14th June, 2013 awarding respondent nos. 3 to 7 ("claimants") a sum of Rs.7,88,240/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 10th August, 2008 till its realisation. Since the said amount was to be paid by M/s. Patliputra Transport Agency (respondent no.8), through its owner (the petitioner) recovery proceedings were initiated for the said amount against the petitioner by way of the impugned notice.
2. Genesis of the matter is an application for compensation under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 ("the Act") preferred by the claimants (being the legal heirs of deceased Mr. Akbar Ali - namely Ms. Razia Begum, wife of the deceased and their minor children). As per the claimants, Mr. Akbar Ali was employed as a loader for loading and unloading on the vehicle owned by M/s. Patliputra Transport Agency (through Mr. Raj Kumar, the owner) arrayed as respondent no.8. On 11th August, 2008, deceased was injured in an accident during the course of employment, when he was mowed down by a vehicle. He was moved to Guru Teg Bahadur hospital by a PCR but succumbed to the injuries sustained by the time he reached there. Post mortem was conducted, dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased, and a First Information Report ("FIR") No.194/2008 was registered on 12th August, 2008 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. At the time of death, the deceased was 30 years of age and drawing wages of Rs.6,500/- per month along with allowances.
3. As per the final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") filed by the Investigating Officer, the offending vehicle remained untraced and therefore, no compensation could be recovered either from its owner or driver of the insurance company. Accordingly, notice dated 13th February, 2013 was issued by the Commissioner under the Act ("Commissioner") to respondent no. 8 `M/s. Patliputra Transport Agency) through Mr. Raj Kumar (owner)' with a direction to appear and reply to the claim application of the claimants. Summons were issued from time to time, however, the same were not received/accepted by the petitioner herein. As such, the Commissioner was left with no option but to proceed ex-parte.
4. The said application was disposed of by order dated 14th June, 2013 by the Commissioner. Based on the statement of the claimants supported by copy of FIR, naksha mauka, final report, post mortem report, medical documents, progress report, identification card, and ration card, the Commissioner concluded that the deceased Mr. Akbar Ali had sustained fatal injuries on 11th August, 2008 during the course of his employment and therefore, was entitled to death compensation. Wages of the deceased were taken as Rs.4,000/- per month in view of the restriction in Section 4 of the Act. The age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of the accident however, in the absence of supporting documents, it was taken as 35 years on the basis of the post mortem report. Compensation was therefore calculated with the relevant factor of 197.06 multiplied with Rs.4,000/- per month, totaling to Rs.7,88,240/- on which interest at the rate of 12 % per annum, as per Section 4A of the Act, from the date of accident was awarded.
5. Two additional developments during the proceedings before this Court, need to be mentioned.
i. The petitioner had recorded a statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. on 12th August, 2008;
ii. The petitioner had stated that he was the owner of M/s. B R Parcel Movers and the deceased used to work in his company;
iii. The deceased was working with the agency of the petitioner was also corroborated
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employer-employee relationship and the interpretation of 'during the course of employment' under the Employees' Compensati....
Workmen’s compensation - Natural death - Death by heart attack is an accident is well recognized.
Compensation claims require proof of causal connection between death and employment; absence of evidence linking death to work results in claim dismissal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the inclusive nature of the definition of 'employer' under the EC Act, and its application to temporary hiring, as well as the requirement for subs....
The judgment establishes the principle that an accident must arise both 'out of' and 'in the course of employment' and considers the concept of 'notional extension' of employment.
A temporary employment relationship can be established under the Employees’ Compensation Act without a formal contract, relying on circumstantial evidence and admissions.
Vehicle owner hiring driver for short duration establishes employer-employee relationship under Employees’ Compensation Act via oral/implied contract, proved by owner’s FIR without written proof.
An injury is compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment, establishing a causal connection between the accident and the workman’s duties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
