Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 filed by the parents (respondents 1 and 2) of the deceased Lalchand, who died due to electrocution while laying tin sheets in a godown owned by the appellant, Nitin Barewar. The appellant was the owner of the godown, and the work was allegedly arranged by respondent No.3, Santosh. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gondia, partly allowed the claim, holding the appellant liable to pay compensation. The appellant appealed under Section 30 of the Act. The High Court examined whether the deceased was a 'workman' under Section 2(n) of the Act. The court noted that the deceased was casually engaged for a specific task and was not employed in any of the categories specified in the definition. The claimants failed to prove that the deceased was employed by the appellant or that there was any direct employer-employee relationship. The court held that the deceased was not a workman under the Act, and therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Definition of Workman - Section 2(n) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The deceased was engaged casually for laying tin sheets in the appellant's godown and was not employed in any of the scheduled categories under Section 2(n) - Held that the deceased was not a workman under the Act and the appellant was not liable for compensation (Paras 7-10).
B) Workmen's Compensation - Employer-Employee Relationship - Burden of Proof - The claimants failed to prove that the deceased was employed by the appellant or that there was any direct contract of service - Held that the burden to establish employer-employee relationship lies on the claimants and they failed to discharge it (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased Lalchand was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and whether the appellant was his employer liable to pay compensation.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 3-5-2013 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Gondia is set aside. The claim for compensation filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Employer-employee relationship
- Burden of proof on claimant
- Casual employment not covered
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (06) 106
First Appeal No.322 of 2014
Shri A. A. Naik with Shri H. Chitale for appellant, Shri R. M. Pande for respondents No.1 & 2
Nitin S/o Ramnath Barewar
Ramesh S/o Parasram Rahangdale, Sou. Kuntanbai W/o Ramesh Rahangdale, Santosh S/o Bhivlal Rahangdale, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Gondia partly allowing the claim for compensation.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the Commissioner's order holding him liable to pay compensation to the respondents No.1 and 2.
Filing Reason
The appellant challenged the finding that the deceased was a workman under the Act and that the appellant was his employer.
Previous Decisions
The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Gondia partly allowed the claim of respondents No.1 and 2 and held the appellant liable to pay compensation.
Issues
Whether the deceased Lalchand was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
Whether the appellant was the employer of the deceased and liable to pay compensation?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the deceased was not a workman under Section 2(n) as he was casually engaged and not employed in any scheduled category.
Respondents No.1 and 2 argued that the deceased was a workman and the appellant was his employer.
Ratio Decidendi
The deceased was not a 'workman' under Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as he was casually engaged for a specific task and not employed in any of the categories specified in the definition. The claimants failed to prove an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the appellant.
Judgment Excerpts
The deceased was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the said Act.
The claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was employed by the appellant.
Procedural History
Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a claim under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Gondia. The Commissioner partly allowed the claim on 3-5-2013, holding the appellant liable. The appellant filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Act on 30-6-2015.
Acts & Sections
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 2(n), Section 10, Section 30
