Writ petition challenging orders in the Employees' Compensation case, primarily asserting procedural violation by the Commissioner for inviting written statements before addressing a preliminary objection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3255 of 2024
Petitioner :- Saket Girls Pg College, Dahilamau, Pratapgarh Thru. Manager Kusum Lata Srivastava And Anr. Respondent :- Commissioner For Employees Compensation / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pratapgarh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeev Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1.
Under challenge is the orders dated 06.04.2024, 19.01.2024, including an entire proceeding initiated in terms of the case EC (Employee Compensation) Case No. 05 of 2023.
Contemtion of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner no. 2 is posted as Principal in the institute of petitioner no. 1 and an accident is alleged to have occurred in the premises of Saket Girls PG College, wherein, the petitioner no. 2 is said to be fell down from the roof of the newly constructed building. Thereafter, the a First Information Report was lodged on 20.06.2022 and later on, the respondent no. 2 has raised a claim while preferring the claim petition no. EC (Employee Compensation) Case No. 05 of 2023 the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, before the respondent no. 1 and thereafter, a notice was issued on 30.02.2023. The petitioners made formal request on 30.06.2023 while seeking the copy of the claim petition, and once it was not served, another letter was sent on 25.07.2023. He added that in between an application of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is preferred before the respondent no. 1, and an order was passed on 19.01.2024, thereby, without dealing the objections, the written statements(WS) are invited, as such, the opposite party no. 1 while ignoring the settled proposition of law, has skipped one step away, which is not permissible under the law.
Adding his arguments, he submits that the respondent no. 2 is admittedly a contractor and he was said to be outside for measurement of the construction work and fell down from the roof and he is not covered under the definition of workman and therefore not entitled for any compensation and therefore, he has no locus to maintain the complaint before the Commissioner for Employees Eompensation, Assistant Labour Commissioner.
Further contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that so far as the provision under Section 37(4) of the U.P. State University Act, 1973 is concerned, terms guidelines and liabilities of a Principal is mentioned.
Section 37 (4) of the U.P. State University Act, 1973 is quoted hereinunder:-
"(4)Except as provided by this Act, the management of an affiliated college shall be free to manage and control the affairs of the college and be responsible for its maintenance and upkeep, and its Principal shall be responsible for the discipline of its students and for the superintendence and control over its staff."
Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it is incumbent upon the Principal under the aforesaid provisions that the he is responsible for superintendence and control over the staff and therefore, the principal is no way responsible for any incident occurred inside the campus of the College.
Adding his arguments he submits that law is very clear on this point as time and again Hon'ble Apex Court has settled this issue in case of Manjubhai J. Patel and another V/s Bank of Baroda and others; (2000) 10 SCC 253, Securities Exchamge Board Of India V/s Manglore Stock Exchange; (2005) 10 SCC 274, T.K Lathika V/s Seth Karsandas Jamnadas; (1999) 6 SCC 632, Shri Chintaman Rao and another V/s The State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1958 SC 388, Indian Overseas Bank V/s Workmen, All India Overseas Bank Emoloyees Union; 2006 SCC Online Ker 814 and Latha and others V/s T.V. Sahadevan; MANU/KE/3277/2023 .
Referring the abovesaid judgements, he submitted that it has been a settled proposition of law that preliminary objection raised by any of the party shall be dealt with prior to proceeding to deal with the matter finally, and so far as the present matter is concerned, the settled proposition of law has been violated by the opposite party no. 1.
Concluding his arguments, he summits that there are other, anomalies which also engage the attention of this Court and therefore, submission is that the orders impugned may be quashed.
On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Singh Chauhan appearing for the respondent no. 1 has refuted the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that once the matter is
brought before the respondent no. 1, he after issuing the notice proceeded in the matter and once an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is preferred, the same was considered and the matter was fixed for filing of written statements and thus, there is no ambiguity or unlawfullness in the order passed by the respondent no. 1. He also added that since the incident occurred inside the College campus and therefore, the Principal of the College can be held responsible.
Prima facie, there seems to be force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, thus, matter requires consideration.
Resultantly, it is provided that the opposite party no. 1 shall not proceed further in EC (Employee Compensation) Case No. 05 of 2023, till the next date of listing.
Let notice be issued to the opposite party no. 2, by both ways.
Steps be taken within 10 days.
List/Put up this matter on 16th May 2024, within top 10 cases for hearing.
In the meantime, the opposite parties may file counter affidavits.
Order Date :- 25.4.2024 Anurag, PS Gr-I
Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the opposite party proceeded in violation of settled law by inviting written statements without dealing with the preliminary objection first.
Whether the contractual nature of the worker excludes liability under the Employees' Compensation Act in an institutional setting.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manjubhai J. Patel and another V/s Bank of Baroda and othersReferred¶13
Manjubhai J. Patel and another V/s Bank of Baroda and others; (2000) 10 SCC 253 · Who else cites this
Securities Exchange Board Of India V/s Manglore Stock ExchangeReferred¶13
Securities Exchamge Board Of India V/s Manglore Stock Exchange; (2005) 10 SCC 274 · Who else cites this
T.K Lathika V/s Seth Karsandas JamnadasReferred¶13
T.K Lathika V/s Seth Karsandas Jamnadas; (1999) 6 SCC 632 · Who else cites this
Shri Chintaman Rao and another V/s The State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶13
Shri Chintaman Rao and another V/s The State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1958 SC 388 · Who else cites this
Indian Overseas Bank V/s Workmen, All India Overseas Bank Emoloyees UnionReferred¶13
Indian Overseas Bank V/s Workmen, All India Overseas Bank Emoloyees Union; 2006 SCC Online Ker 814 · Who else cites this
Latha and others V/s T.V. SahadevanReferred¶13
Latha and others V/s T.V. Sahadevan; MANU/KE/3277/2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saket Girls Pg College, Dahilamau, Pratapgarh Thru. Manager Kusum Lata Srivastava And Anr.
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pratapgarh
Commissioner For Employees Compensation / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pratapgarh And Another
Prakash Singh
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
