The Allahabad High Court while allowing an appeal said that from the definition of Employee Compensation Act, 1923, it is clear that any person engaged in construction, maintenance, repairing or demolition of any building, which is more than one storey in height above the ground is treated as employee.
A Single Bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Seema Devi.
The first appeal from order has been filed on behalf of claimant-appellant under Section 30(1)(a) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Employees Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Labour Commissioner, UP, Ghaziabad Region, Ghaziabad in ECA Case (Seema Devi Vs Vimal Jain and another) by which claim petition filed by claimant-appellant was dismissed.
The 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 Mahendra S/O Dhruva @ Dhroop Singh, who died on 31.03.2015 while working at 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, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad belonging to opposite party no1 in the direction of opposite party no2.
Also read – Dharmendra Singh Negi joins Svarn Group as CHRO
During the course of employment on 31.03.2015 the deceased fell down from the third floor of the building and received grievous injuries and died on 20.04.2015 on account of injuries received by him. The death occurred arising out of and in the course of his employment.
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 no1 that the deceased was never engaged by him and there was no relation of employee-employer between deceased and opposite party no1. The claim petition against opposite party no1 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
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 a 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.
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 appeared as defendant-witness. The Employees Compensation Commissioner without framing the issue 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.
The Court observed that,
It is admitted fact that the deceased had received grievous injuries on fateful day 31.03.2015 while working as a painter at the building of respondent no1. It is also admitted that the deceased fell down from the third storey of building while he was engaged in repairing/painting work.
The Employees Compensation Commissioner itself has recorded the finding after considering the evidence adduced by the parties that the deceased was engaged for white washing and painting work on fateful day i.e 31.03.2015 and fell down from third storey and had received grievous injuries and died on account of injuries received by him. The claim petition was dismissed merely on the ground that the engagement of the deceased was purely causal in nature and there was no employee-employer relation.
From the bare perusal of the definition of employee it is very much clear that any person engaged in construction, maintenance, repairing or demolition of any building, which is more than one story in height above the ground is treated as employee. In the case, it is admitted that the deceased was engaged in repairing/painting work and fell down from the third story.
“From the evidence adduced by the parties, it is apparent that the deceased was engaged for repairing/painting work at the house of opposite party no1 on 31.03.2015 and fell down from third floor and had received injuries and died on account of injuries received by him. The deceased is an employee under the ambit of Employees Compensation Act. The Employees Compensation Commissioner has erred in dismissing the claim petition holding that there was no employee-employer relation and claim petition was not maintainable, whereas from the definition clause of employee it is apparent that the deceased was working as an employee and had received injuries during the course of his employment. The finding recorded by the Employees compensation Commissioner, in rejecting the claim petition is perverse and against the law,” the Court further observed while allowing the petition.
The Court set aside the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Employees Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Labour Commissioner, UP, Ghaziabad Region, Ghaziabad in ECA Case (Seema Devi Vs Vimal Jain and another).
Source: indialegallive
