Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Geeta Devi and others - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Shimla & another - Respondents.
FAO No. 07 of 2014
Decided on : 01-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Balbir Singh Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
IMPORTANT POINT
Employment under MNREGA does not establish an employer-employee relationship under the Workmen Compensation Act, thus precluding claims for compensation.
Headnote:
(A) Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 2(dd) and 10 - Claim for compensation - Deceased was employed under MNREGA and died during employment - Court held that deceased was not a workman under WC Act due to lack of employer-employee relationship and failure to serve notice under Section 10 - Compensation under MNREGA was already provided. (Paras 11 , 26 , 28 )
(B) Employment under MNREGA - Nature of employment under MNREGA does not establish an employer-employee relationship for the purposes of WC Act - The provisions of MNREGA and its guidelines exclude applicability of WC Act for workers engaged under it. (Paras 26 , 28 )
Facts of the case:
The appellants, legal heirs of deceased Ramesh Chand, filed a claim for compensation after he died due to an accident while working under MNREGA. The respondents contested the claim, asserting that there was no employer-employee relationship and that compensation had already been paid under MNREGA.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to prove the deceased was a workman under the WC Act, leading to the dismissal of the claim for compensation.
Issues: The main issues included whether the deceased was a workman under the WC Act and whether the claim was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that employment under MNREGA does not constitute an employer-employee relationship as defined under the WC Act, and thus, the appellants were not entitled to compensation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Appellants have approached this Court against dismissal of their claim filed under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘WC Act’) vide award dated 12th August, 2013 passed in Case No. WC Act/0300041/2012 titled Geeta Devi and others vs. Deputy Commissioner and another.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are surviving legal heirs of deceased Ramesh Chand who had been employed as labourer through Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (in short ‘MNREGA). On 7th February, 2009, while he was on duty in course of his employment under MNREGA Scheme and was doing work of cutting, a boulder from upper side fell and struck on the chest of the deceased. Immediately after the occurrence deceased was brought to hospital, where he died.
3. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, claim petition was filed for grant of compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till its realization and to impose penalty to the extent of 50%.
4. It has been claimed by appellants that at the time of accident, 44 years old deceased was workman as defined under WC Act. It is further case of the appellants that no notice under Section 10 of WC Act was given to respondents because the accident was well within their knowledge and regarding accident, FIR had also been lodged in Police Station Kumarsain.
5. It is the claim of appellants that respondents are legally bound to pay compensation along with interest and penalty because they have failed to deposit the compensation within stipulated period.
6. Claim petition was contested by respondents on various grounds including that petition was barred by limitation, appellants were estopped from filing the petition on account of their act and conduct, it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and case was not falling under the purview of WC Act as there was no employer and employee’s relationship between the parties or contract of service with or control of the Government over the deceased. It was further stated in the reply that deceased was engaged on his own request under MNREGA Act which is a special Act under the Government of India and under the said Act, as provided, appellants have been duly compensated by giving Rs.25,000/- to wife of deceased i.e. appellant No.2 Mani Devi on 10th February, 2009 and 23rd April, 2009 in two installments.
7. It is the stand of respondents that deceased was not workman as defined under WC Act because he was engaged casually by the Gram Panchayat, but not by the respondents and thus respondents are not employers of deceased. Further that deceased was engaged by the Gram Panchayat on the basis of demand of work raised/given by deceased under the MNREGA Act.
8. It has been further contended on behalf of respondents that MNREGA is a Special Act, which provides payment of compensation in it, and thus case of deceased Ramesh Chand does not fall under WC Act. Further that no notice under Section 10 of WC Act has been issued to respondents which was mandatory. It has been claimed that respondents No.1 and 2 are not liable to pay any compensation to appellants for want of employer and employee’s relationship as well as for not serving the notice.
9. Appellants have reiterated their stand as per the claim petition and have denied all objections raised by respondents.
10. Following issues were framed by Commissioner, under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 on 11th September, 2012:-
1. Whether the deceased was a workman within the meaning of W.C. Act, as alleged? ….OPP
2. Whether accident occurred during the course of employment of deceased? ….OPP
3. Whether the amount of compensation claimed due from respondents? ….OPP
4. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the amount of compensation? ….OPP
5. Whether the present petition is barred by limitation?…..OPR
6. Whether the claimants are estopped from filing the petition due to their own act and conduct? ..OPR
7. Relief
11. After adjudicating the ma
