CASE DETAILS v. SEPTEMBER 26

Union of India v. Sri Harananda (2019) 14 SCC 126; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 49 : [2016] 1 SCR 1; Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527 : [2008] 7 SCR 673; Ramesh Birch and others v. Union of India and others (1989) 1 Suppl. SCC 430 : [1989] 2 SCR 629 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3592 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2016 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in FA No.112 of 2016. Appearances: Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Shashwat Parihar, Shubhendu Anand, Tathagat Sharma, Nring Chamwibo Zeliang, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Prerana Chaturvedi, Jaitun Kumar N. Patel, Advs. for the Respondents. COMMANDING OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL FORCE, MUMBAI v. BHAVNABEN DINSHBHAI BHABHOR & OTHERS 663 JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT MANOJ MISRA, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (in short, “the High Court”), dated 24.02.2016, passed in First Appeal No. 112 of 2016, by which the appeal of the appellant under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 - hereinafter referred to as the 1923 Act) against the order of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (in short, “the Commissioner”) in W.C. Case No. 05 of 2010, has been dismissed. FACTS

The husband of the fi rst respondent was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force, a unit of the Railway Protection Force (in short, “the RPF”), on 27.12.2006. He died on 23.04.2008 in an accident in the course of his employment. On his death, the fi rst respondent along with other heirs of the deceased fi led a claim petition under the 1923 Act for compensation by claiming, inter alia, that on the date of his death, the deceased was aged 25 years and getting monthly wages of Rs. 8,000/-. The claim was resisted by the appellants, inter-alia, on the ground that the deceased was part of the Armed Forces of the Union and, therefore, not a workman; hence, the claim petition under the 1923 Act is not maintainable.

The Commissioner found that the relationship of workman-employer between the deceased and the non-claimant was admitted to the non- claimant; the deceased died in an accident in the course of his employment; and the deceased being a “Railway Servant”, as per the provisions of Section 2(34) of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short, the 1989 Act), would be deemed to be a “workman” under Section 2(1)(n)(i) of the 1923 Act and, therefore, the claim petition was maintainable. Regarding the amount payable as compensation, applying the formula provided in Section 4 of the 1923 Act, the Commissioner determined the compensation payable as Rs. 4,33,820/- and directed it to be paid to the claimants within 30 days from the date of the order with 9% interest. 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R.

Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the appellant filed a first appeal bearing number 112 of 2016 before the High Court under Section 30 of the 1923 Act. The thrust of the submissions before the High Court was that the definition of “workman” as per Section 2 (n) of the 1923 Act excludes any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, therefore, since Section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (in short, “the 1957 Act”) declared the RPF as an Armed Force of the Union, the deceased being a constable in the RPF would not be a workman within the meaning of section 2 (n) of the 1923 Act; hence, claim petition under the 1923 Act was not maintainable.

The aforesaid plea raised by the appellant was not accepted by the High Court and the appeal was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, this appeal has been preferred.

We have heard Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG assisted by Mr. Shubhendu Anand and Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia for the appellant and Ms. Prerana Chaturvedi for the respondents. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the deceased was indisputably a member of the RPF which, as per Section 3 of the 1957 Act, is an Armed Force of the Union. Section 2 (n) of the 1923 Act defines a workman. By clause clause (n) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the 1923 Act, though workman, inter alia, means a railway servant as defined in Section 2 (34) of the 1989 Act, any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union is excluded. Therefore, as, by virtue of Section 3 of the 1957 Act, the deceased was part of the Armed Forces of the Union, he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(n) of the 1923 Act and, in view thereof, the claim petition was not maintainable under the 1923 Act.

In addition to the above, it was argued that the deceased was not an employee specifically covered by any of the Entries in Schedule II of the 1923 Act, therefore, he cannot be treated as a workman under 2(1) (n) of the 1923 Act. It was pointed out that Entries (i), (xii) and (xiii) of COMMANDING OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL FORCE, MUMBAI v. BHAVNABEN DINSHBHAI BHABHOR & OTHERS [MANOJ MISRA, J.] 665 Schedule II refers to employees of the Railways but a constable in the RPF is conspicuous by its absence there. According to the counsel for the appellant, unless an employee falls in any of the entries specified in Schedule II of the 1923 Act he cannot be considered a workman.

It was next contended that the process of compassionate appointment of the next of kin of the deceased was initiated, therefore, a claim for compensation was not maintainable under the 1923 Act. More so, when the claimants-respondents had an alternate remedy available under Section 124-A of the 1989 Act.

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on certain decisions, namely, (i) Union of India v. Sri Harananda1, wherein, relying on Sections 3 and 8 of the 1957 Act, it was held that RPF is an Armed Force of the Union. However, this decision is not in the context of the 1923 Act. (ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd.2, wherein it was observed that when the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences; and (iii) Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar3, wherein it was observed that in a beneficial or welfare statute if the words used therein are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object of the Act, and for the benefit of the person for whom the Act was made, should be preferred. (Note: This decision was relied upon to canvass that compensation could be had under Section 124-A of the 1989 Act and, therefore, there was no justification to invoke the provisions of the 1923 Act) 1 2 3