IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.12.2025 Dev Dutt Soni ...... Appellant versus Smt. Sita Devi (since deceased) th. her LRs and others ..... Respondents *****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate with Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for UT, Chandigarh.

Mr. Shailesh Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Yash Garg, Advocate and Mr. Roshan Chiripal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent-UOI.

Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Ins. Co.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. AG, Punjab.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal at the behest of an employer against order passed by the Commissioner exercising powers under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1923').

2. Appellant has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8,78,530/- to the respondents/claimants on account of death of Sham Lal. Sham Lal was working as labour (as Mason) on daily-wages of Rs.700/-, for repairing wall of the house of the appellant. As per the claim petition, the deceased Mason advised the appellant that the wall was not worth repair. He still insisted upon him to repair the dilapidated wall. During the course of repair, the wall suddenly fell and the deceased Mason as well as the helper were clinched under the wall.

3. On 23.09.2024, following order was passed by this Court taking holistic view:-

“This is an appeal at the behest of an employer against order passed by the Commissioner exercising powers under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1923’).

2. Appellant has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.8,78,530/- to the respondents/claimants on account of death of Sham Lal. Sham Lal was working as labour (as Mason) on daily-wages of Rs.700/-, for repairing wall of the house of the appellant. As per the claim petition, the deceased Mason advised the appellant that the wall was not worth repair. He still insisted upon him to repair the dilapidated wall. During the course of repair, the wall suddenly fell and the deceased Mason as well as the helper were clinched under the wall.

3. By now, it is a well settled proposition of law that the owner of a site under construction/repair falls within the ambit of employer, as defined under the Act, 1923 and is liable to compensate the deceased/injured employee, in case the same is on account of accident that has occurred during the course of employment.

4. Leave aside the merits of the present case, this Court finds that the proposition needs to be analyzed from both the ends. On one hand are the claimants, who lost their only earning family member in an accident during the course of employment, and on the other hand, there is a person who is held liable to pay an amount of Rs.8,78,530/- for repair of wall of a house which itself is not worth that amount.

5. In 1996, The Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1996') was enacted to regulate the employment and conditions of service of building and other construction workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare measures and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The relevant extract of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Act read as under:-

“Statement of Objects and Reasons – It is estimated that about 8.5 million workers in the country are engaged in building and other construction works. Building and other construction workers are one of the most numerous and vulnerable segments of the unorganized labour in India. The building and other construction works are characterized by their inherent risk to the life and limb of the workers. The work is also characterized by its casual nature, temporary relationship between employer and employee