Judgment · High Court

None HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order : 13/01/2022 Heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. By way of filing the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. T.S. (EC) 26 of 2013. Brief facts are that, the appellants being the legal heirs of late Hindu Mani Tripura filed an application before the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala, claiming compensation due to death of late Hindu Mani Tripura. What has been surfaced from the claim application and submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that late Hindu Mani Tripura was a labour engaged under MGNREGA scheme. It is the case of the appellants that during and in course of his employment, Hindu Mani Tripura suffered cardiac attack, and ultimately died.

The respondents had appeared being summoned. Issues were framed. Evidences were recorded. Thereafter, having heard learned counsel and on examination of the materials on record, learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala, had dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. The grounds for such dismissal as assigned by learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, may be reproduced here-under:- “7. The Employee's Compensation Act being a welfare legislation, the words “arising out of accident” is always given wider meaning. Even if, any injury is caused from some risk incidental or attached to the duties assigned, it comes under above phraseology. If the deceased/injured employee had some disease in him prior to such entrustment of duty, but such ailment has been aggravated by reason of any sort of stress or strain due to nature of employment, same will also some within the purview of Employee’s Compensation Act entitling the petitioner(s) to compensation.

But to attract so, petitioner(s) remains under legal obligation to establish the same. Here, in the case in hand, nothing has been adduced as such. Even, the petitioners did not disclose what of sort of work, the deceased was entrusted with. They simply asserted that the deceased was employed as labour under MGNREGA scheme and nothing more. No evidence adduced regarding nature of work entrusted with and the risk, stress or strain involved therein and the affect of such employment upon the health of the deceased. In this type of cases, medical evidence also assumes significance to establish casual relationship between the nature of work and the death of the deceased. Thus, the petitioners fail to establish the casual relation of the death of Hindu Mani Tripura with his employment”. I find no fault in the above findings of the learned Commissioner. In addition, MGNREGA workers do not hold any civil post under the State government. The wages are paid to MGNREGA workers under a scheme. As such, an MGNREGA worker does not come within the purview of the definition of “workman” as contemplated in the Employee’s Compensation Act. In view of the above, the instant appeal is devoid of merit, and accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Saikat