Mamo Devi Vs Shamsher Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mamo Devi Vs Shamsher Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Finding of the Commissioner that the deceased (a Field Labourer) fell outside the Section 2(i)(n) workman definition set aside; matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision within three months of receipt of certified copy of the order; parties to represent themselves before the Commissioner; appeal disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the deceased, who was employed as a Field Labourer, falls within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(i)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in view of the State of Haryana notification dated 29.12.1976 adding a clause to Schedule-(ii) covering persons employed for spraying or dusting of insecticides or pesticides in agricultural operations on plantation. +1 more

Court's answer

The finding recorded by the Commissioner that the deceased, having been employed as a Field Labourer, does not fall within the definition of workman as contemplated under Section 2(i)(n) of the 1923 Act cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Commissioner, while dismissing the application, tried to make out a classification between Field Labourer and the labour employed for spray and dusting of insecticides and pesticides in the agricultural operation on plantation without there being any such classification existing in the law.

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the same afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Workmen's Compensation – Definition of 'workman', S.2(i)(n), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 – State of Haryana vide notification 12321-4-Lab-76/34706 dated 29.12.1976 added an additional clause to Schedule-(ii) bringing persons employed for spraying or dusting of insecticides or pesticides in agricultural operations on plantation within the workman definition – Commissioner rejected claimants' petition holding that the deceased, employed as a Field Labourer, did not fall within S.2(i)(n) – High Court: Commissioner had made out a classification between Field Labourer and spraying/dusting labour 'without there being any such classification existing in the law'; the finding that the deceased as Field Labourer was outside S.2(i)(n) cannot be sustained and is set aside – Matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision within three months of receipt of certified copy – Parties to represent themselves before the Commissioner – Appeal disposed of accordingly.

(O&M)

Challenge is to the order passed by Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 1923 Act). The claim petition filed by the claimants stands rejected observing as under :-

“After hearing the arguments, I find that vide notification 12321-4-Lab-76/34706 dated 29.12.1976 and additional clause to Schedule-(ii) was added by the State of Haryana and the persons, who were employed for spraying or dusting of insecticides or pesticides in agricultural operation on plantation were brought in the definition of workman as defined under Section 2 (i) (n) of the Act.

After going through the claim application, it is found that the deceased was employed as a Field Labourer and not to spray the insecticides or pesticides in agricultural operation on plantation. The field labourer thus cannot fill within the definition of Section 2(i) (n) of the Act. The above clause was added by the State of Haryana for those persons, who were

POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.28 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 1 of 2

(O&M)

trained to spray and dust out the insecticides and pesticides in agricultural operation on plantation and if these persons die or get disable while spraying and dusting of the insecticides and pesticides in agricultural operation on plantation, then their dependents or he himself, as the case may be, are is entitled to receive compensation under the Act. This claim application does not fall in line of my above observation, therefore, I dismissed the same.”

2 The Commissioner while dismissing the application has tried to make out classification between Field Labourer and the Labour employed for spray and dusting of insecticides and pesticides in the agricultural operation on plantation without there being any such classification existing in the law. In view thereof, this Court finds that the finding recorded by the Commissioner that the deceased having been employed as a Field Labourer does not fall within the definition of workman as contemplated under Section 2(i) (n) of the 1923 Act cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the same afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

3 The parties shall represent themselves before the

Commissioner.

4 Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.28 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 2 of 2