Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

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.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Appellants have reiterated their stand as per the claim petition and have denied all objections raised by respondents.

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

After adjudicating the matter, the Commissioner under WC Act