Partly allowed

Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Employee,S Compensation Commissioner/Distt. Magistrate,Lakhimpur Kheri and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2025FAFO/255/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J. disposed of an appeal against an ex-parte compensation order and a CM application. The appellant argued he was not the employer and death was due to criminal firing, not an accident. The court allowed the exemption from deposit and stayed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Application for exemption from deposit under the IIIrd proviso to Section 30 allowed; operation of impugned judgment stayed.

Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Employee,S… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 255 of 2025

¶3

Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Gupta Respondent :- Employee,S Compensation Commissioner/Distt. Magistrate,Lakhimpur Kheri And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Niraj Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Niraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant has challenged the validity of an ex-parte judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri awarding Rs.6,50,730/- as compensation payable by the applicant.

¶7

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was working in Shiv Gauri Atta Chakki, of which the appellant's wife late Renu Gupta was proprietor and the appellant was neither proprietor of the aforesaid Atta Chakki nor was he the employer of the deceased.

¶8

The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that on 09.03.2019, the deceased as well as the employer (the appellant's wife) were shot dead in the Atta Chakki.

¶9

The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Section 3 (1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 provides for employer's liability for payment of compensation if personal injury is caused to an employee by an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. He has submitted that the deceased was killed by firing made by some miscreant, in which incident the employer was also killed.

¶10

As per the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation for two reasons, firstly, the deceased was not killed in any accident and secondly, the appellant was not his employer.

¶11

The matter requires consideration.

¶12

Admit.

¶13

Summon the record of proceedings from the Employees Compensation Commissioner.

¶14

Issue notice to the opposite parties, returnable at an early date.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is provided that the operation and implementation of impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.125/57 of 2019, shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.

¶16

(Order on C.M. Application No.01 of 2025)

¶17

By means of this application, the appellant has sought an exemption from the liability of making deposit of compensation amount as per the III^rd proviso appended to Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

¶18

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that that amount is required to be deposited by an employer whereas the appellant is not an employer and the deceased did not die in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and he died in a criminal incident.

¶19

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission, the application is allowed . The appellant is exempted from making deposit of the amount as per the III^rd proviso appended to Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

¶20

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 18.6.2025 -Amit K-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Employee,S Compensation Commissioner/Distt. Magistrate,Lakhimpur Kheri and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Employee,S Compensation Commissioner/Distt. Magistrate,Lakhimpur Kheri and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haneef vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Madarsa Madinatul Islam,a.Nagar Thru. Manager Ramzan Ali @ Ramzan Ali Taluk Ali Shaikh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

C/M Madarsa Madinatul Islam,a.Nagar Thru. Manager Ramzan Ali @ Ramzan Ali Taluk Ali Shaikh and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Tirkha Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. Revenue and 6 Others

Rohit Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Girirsh Chandra Tiwari and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Distt. Ayodhya and 8 Others