Point of Law: Section 2(e) "employer" includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of [an employee] are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the [employee] has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the [employee] is working for him

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Employees Compensation Act, 1923, i.e. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad, Region, Faizabad dated 11.03.2015 in Employees Compensation Case No. 08 of 2011 (Smt. Ruby vs. Branch Manager Grameen Bank, Inayat Nagar, Faizabad and others).

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that she is the wife of late Preetam Lal, who was employed as Safai Karmchari in Baroda U.P. Grameen Bank, Inayat Nagar, Faizabad Region, Faizabad. He was being paid monthly salary of Rs.1050/-per month and while being employed as Safari Karmchari, was also engaged with the respondent's bank for the bringing tea and water etc. for the employees of the Bank and the customers of the Bank. and he also used to run the diesel generator set for the bank.

3. On 12.07.2010 in the evening, the petitioner's husband was asked to give the water to one of the employees of the Bank, but when Late Preetam Lal went to use the hand pump set-up in the Bank premises, he was electrocuted. At the time of his death, he was aged about 30 years and due to his extra duties of supplies of water and tea to the employees of the Bank, he was able to earn Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/-per month. On his accidental death, the petitioner filed an appeal for paying of ten times compensation of the amount which was being earned by Late husband. The Bank disputed the liability and after taking evidence the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad Region, Faizabad rejected the case of the petitioner arbitrarily by holding that the petitioner's Late husband was not an employee of the Bank.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to definition of employee given under Section 2(dd) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and has referred to Sub-clause-3, thereof which is as follows:-

"2(dd) (iii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to any employee who has been injured shall, where the employee is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them;"

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Section 2(e) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 which defines an employer. Section 2 (e) is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"2(e) "employer" includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of [an employee] are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the [employee] has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the [employee] is working for him;"

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Clause-(XIX) of Schedule-II, attached to the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, a person employed for generating, transforming, transmitting or distributing electrical energy or in generating the supply of gas etc. is also considered to be in Scheduled employment and, therefore, on his accidental death, the compensation can be claimed under the Act by his dependent.

7. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that although the husband of the petitioner was employed on a contractual basis as a Safai Karmchari, he was also a contractual employee, in so far as running a diesel generator set in the Bank premises is concerned, therefore the contract of employment with regard to running of diesel generator set would in fact be considered as sufficient ground to claim compensation for accidental death due to electrocution from the said generator set.

8. Sri Vinay Shanker, who appears for the Bank, has pointed out from the order impugned that