The Employees' Compensation Act mandates liberal construction for worker welfare, affirming that death from medical emergencies at the workplace is compensable regardless of attendance irregularities.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the `EC Act'), the appellant has assailed the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation (South District), Delhi in Case No. CEC/SD/D/20/2017/407.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though Mohd. Iqrar (the deceased) was employed with the appellant at the time of the incident, however the Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that his death had occurred during the course of employment. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to the attendance register of the deceased for the month of September, 2015 wherein his attendance is marked only upto 24.09.2015. It is contended that the deceased had remained absent on 25/26.09.2015. Lastly, it is submitted that no medical documents have been produced on record by the respondent/claimant.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

5. There is no gainsaying that labour statutes such as the EC Act constitute `beneficial legislation' for the welfare of workmen and should be liberally construed in their favour. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Jaya Biswal and Others v. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Another reported as (2016) 11 SCC 201 has opined thus:

"20. The EC Act is a welfare legislation enacted to secure compensation to the poor workmen who suffer from injuries at their place of work. This becomes clear from a perusal of the preamble of the Act which reads as under:

"An Act to provide for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident."

This further becomes clear from a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which reads as under:

"... The growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, along with the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible, from hardship arising from accidents.

An additional advantage of legislation of this type is that, by increasing the importance for the employer of adequate safety devices, it reduces the number of accidents to workmen in a manner that cannot be achieved by official inspection. Further, the encouragement given to employers to provide adequate medical treatment for their workmen should mitigate the effects to such accidents as do occur. The benefits so conferred on the workman added to the increased sense of security which he will enjoy, should render industrial life more attractive and thus increase the available supply of labour. At the same time, a corresponding increase in the efficiency of the average workman may be expected."

(emphasis supplied)

21. Thus, the EC Act is a social welfare legislation meant to benefit the workers and their dependents in case of death of workman due to accident caused during and in the course of employment should be construed as such."

6. Further, an appeal filed under Section 30 of the EC Act is confined only to examination of substantial questions of law and is not to be considered on the touchstone of an appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. At this juncture, this Court may profitably refer to the decision in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514. In the captioned cas