Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.
Seema Devi – Appellant
Versus
Vimal Jain and Another – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 1596 of 2022
Decided On : 21-11-2024
(A) Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30(1)(a) - Claim petition dismissed by Employees Compensation Commissioner - Claimant sought compensation for death of husband during employment - Court found deceased was engaged in work covered under the Act, and the dismissal was erroneous. (Paras 1, 10, 15)
(B) Employment Definition - The court clarified that the definition of 'employee' includes those engaged in construction and repair work, thus affirming the claimant's entitlement to compensation. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The claimant filed for compensation after her husband died from injuries sustained while working as a painter, falling from a third floor during employment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the deceased was indeed an employee under the Act and that the prior dismissal of the claim was legally flawed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased was an employee under the Act and entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the deceased's work as a painter constituted employment under the Act, and the previous ruling was perverse.
Result: The appeal is allowed and the previous order is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.
1. This first appeal from order has been filed on behalf of claimant-appellant under Section 30(1)(a) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Employees Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Ghaziabad Region, Ghaziabad in E.C.A. Case No. 164 of 2015 (Smt. Seema Devi Vs. Sri Vimal Jain and another) by which claim petition filed by claimant-appellant was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. No one is present on behalf of respondent no. 1 in spite of service of notice.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant had filed claim petition under Section 3 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation of Rs. 7,68,560/- along with 12% interest on account of death of her husband namely late Sri Mahendra S/o Dhruva @ Dhroop Singh, who died on 31.03.2015 while working at site no. C-130, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad. It was the case of claimant before the Employees Compensation Commissioner that the deceased was an employee of opposite party no. 2 for the last ten years on the monthly wages of Rs. 9,100/- per month. The opposite party no. 2/employer was a contractor, got the contract for wall repairing and painting work from opposite party no. 1. The deceased was working on 31.03.2015 at site no. C-130, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad belonging to opposite party no. 1 on the direction of opposite party no. 2. During the course of employment on 31.03.2015 the deceased fell down from third floor of the building and have received grievous injuries and died on 20.04.2015 on account of injuries received by him. The death was occurred arising out and in the course of his employment.
4. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 put their appearance before the authority below and filed separate written statements denying the claim allegations. It was the case of defendant-opposite party no. 1 that the deceased was never engaged by him and there was no relation of employee-employer between deceased and opposite party no. 1. The claim petition against opposite party no. 1 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
5. The opposite party no. 2 had also contested the claim petition by filing his written statement denying the claim allegations. The employment of the deceased was denied, but it was admitted that the deceased was engaged for painting work on casual basis at the site of opposite party no. 1. It is also admitted that he was also engaged for painting work by opposite party no. 1 and while performing painting work the deceased fell down and received grievous injuries and died on account of those injuries.
6. The claimant had appeared before the authority concerned as claimant-witness and had also produced documentary evidence in support of her case. The defendant no. 2 was appeared as defendant-witness. The Employees Compensation Commissioner without framing issued of determination had decided the claim petition holding that the deceased was engaged for repairing and white washing on casual basis and there was no relation of master and servant and the claimant is not entitled for any compensation under the Employees Compensation Act.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant had fully proved her case by producing documentary as well as oral evidence regarding employment of the deceased as painter and death during the course of his employment. The defendant no. 2 who was contractor had also admitted that the deceased was engaged for painting work and had received injuries in the incident on 31.03.2015 and died on account of injuries received by him on 20.04.2015. It is further submitted that the Employees Compensation Commissioner, after considering evidence adduced by the parties has accepted the employment of the deceased as casual worker on daily wages, but had rejected the claim peti
AI
The court established that a worker engaged in painting and repair work qualifies as an employee under the Employees Compensation Act, thus entitled to compensation.
Compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act requires proving an employer-employee relationship, which was not established, leading to the dismissal of the claim.
Claimants must prove disputed employer-employee relationship, especially between relatives, with cogent documentary and independent evidence; self-serving testimonies insufficient to impose insurer l....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employer-employee relationship and the entitlement to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the circumstances under which the employer is liable for employees compensation under section 3 of the Employees Compensat....
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
