Appeal against Workmen's Compensation award. Court held government workman entitled to compensation under Act despite Fundamental Rules and pension benefits; appeal dismissed.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; no compensation awarded to the appellant.
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.
[3216 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 547 OF 2007
Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against order in W.C.No.20 of 2006, daled 27 -06-2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar.
Between:
The Executive Engineer, Division No.5, Jammikunta, Jhammikunta Post and mandal, Karimnagar District.
.,.APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTIES
AND
(R3 brought on records as LRs of the deceased R2 Vide C.O. dt. 21-102021 in lA No. 3 of 2020)
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2007(C.M.A.M.P. NO: 1310 OF 2007)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the award in WC No.20l2006 dated 27.06.2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst.Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar including disbursement of the amou nt.
l.A. NO: 3 OF 2007 (C M.A.M.P. NO: 2036 of 2007)
Between:
Smt. Ravanaver i sarojana, W/o. Late R. Ralamallu, 1/o. Hlr o.'18-'1 12, Marnindla Wade Huzurabad, Karimangar District.
..PETlTl,f NERS;r RETSPONDENTS
AND
RESrONDE:'lT/,\PPELLANT
(R3 brought on r ecords as LRs of the deceased R2: Vide C O. dt. 21 -'102021 in lA No. 3 ,f 2020l.
:IES )ONDENTS
Petition under Slction 1 51 CPC praying that in ther circu rr sta rces stated in the affidavit filed in s upport of the petition, the High Court m,ry be pleased to vacate the interim ordr r, dated 27 -07 -2007 in C.M.A.M.P No. 1:t10 of 2007 in C lvl.A No.547 of 2007.
Counsel for the Appella rt : GP FOR ARBITRATION
Counsel for the Respon lents: P.SRIDHAR RAO
The Court made the foll rwing: JUDGMENT
.I'tIT] IIO'I}I-E SITI JLS'I I( L, }I. I,,\X\I.\N ('Ivlt. )lls( r,LI-,\1..O['S ,\l'l'].\I- ]..o.517 Ot 2l)l)7
JUDGN{EN'I:
\1r. (1.\l . l o 5J7 ol 2O(l;
cirarr'ing Iis.7.i )l'- to\r'ards wages. As such, thc.tpplic,rnts \vho are\'i1e antl tathcr olth : ileceasecl, claimed colnpensation of I{s.-,.lil,3ii0i-
7 . The Commissionc-r alie r appreciating thc eviclencc as ri ell as the Iegal position lound that the dcceased rr as a rvorkuran ancl his last dralvn salary rvas also acceptecl since it is also not in dispLrte anrl lrlso cor-rsidcrcd the legal position that il- thc rvorkman is ernployed rvith thc Govcmment, he is also entitled for compensation under \,'orkman Conrpcnsation Act Consequently, the Arvard u,as passed fbr the quantum indicated hereinbefore. Hence, thc prcscnt appeal at thc instancc o1'opptrsite party
Whether the legal heirs of the deceased - ll .Rajamallu, being the worlcnan employed with the Government, are entitlcd to 1ay the claim against the Government in the light ol his services are rrcgulated under fundamental Ru1es.
:1 u, (l \l .\ N,r Jl7 .)1 lol)i
\'it: r-cni()\ in,.I tl r :L.ris li'om tiLe canal,'fhe last d ar, l' ' ll 1r',i) also not in clispute. ['he r uanturn is also not seriously in dispute
I 1. -l'h t: ,rnlf iispute raised by the opposite party is tl rt. tht: r.vorkman absorbed into tt e Government seruice and his ser-" ict.:onlitionsare regulated bv the undamental rules fi'amed by the G,,rve rnrrt,.;nt tnd her'r'as also grantld pt n:ion under the Pension Rules and .)olnpassionate appointment lva: also given to his legal heir. Therelb-,: arcording to thenr. the bcneii conllnncd .under the Workmen Qqrnlr,snsa.ion Act is not aYail]ble to t Lc w,lrkmen
l[-r\ As seen tr rnr the Award passed by the Commissk)rt(]r, il ret-erence rvas made to var ous decisions rendered by the High CoL rtr; ol'Rajasthan and Kerala. It i; important to refer to the decision in lladhomani Vs. Secretarl', Dcp: rtment of Home Affairsl. The Di.'l;ion Bench of Kerala lli-qh Cou t held that if a driver emplol,ed with a vehiclo owned by the Government the Government cannot disciaim the ,iabirity on the ground that he'n as reguiated by the fundamental rules ;1'service. The Workman Ciomp:nsation Act does not exclude the Gove:: ment from the defrnition o I ernJ loyer.
, 1995(70) FLR ( t7
l
12.'I'he iacts adveficd bi, the High Courl ol' Kerala in thc dccision referred above indicate that if the vehicle is orvned bv the Governmcnt and thc driver rvho is the rvorkman died in the course ol employurent. the (iovemment cannot contend that he is not cntitled fbr compensatiorr under Workmen Compensation Act. This rncans, the(lor..ernntcrrt is includcd u,ithin the definition of ernployer. Any benetits r-rnder the Sen,ice Pension Rules and Compassionate appointmcnt do not discntitle the legal hcirs from claiming the compensation tbr the clcath ol'thc r.r.orkman r,vhile discharging the duties as a workman during the collrse ol en'rployrrcnt.
i3. In the present case, there is no dispute that thc death *'as during the course of emplol,rnent and nature of duties rvere also falling undcr the definition of u,orkman as refened in II Schedule ol clause-S ol thc Workman Compensation Act. Once the deceased was trcated as a rvorkman and his death is during the course of employment and urclcly because the employer is a Government, he cannot be deprived of bcnetlts under the Workmen Compensation Act. I do not trnd any merit in the contention of the learrred Counsel fbr the appellant. I Ience, the appcal is liable to be dismissed.
(r
I I
\ t,.
(l r,1 ,\ N,, .r l7 of l0l)/
1r1. AccLrlr.ri:r-:\tllc Ci\ il { isc.'lla neor"lsAllpeilIis cis lti>scti ] Il'-rc
shJIl l:e tt,' 'l,lrt I IL\r\l)'
stanLlclrrsL-!1.
SD/- :,.S.(:HIRANJEEVI .I[)INI REGISTRAR
,TRUE COPY' af) liE,CT ON OFFICER
To, 1. The Commissi,,ner for Workmen's Compensation and A sr;t. Oommissioner of Labour Kari nrraqar(With records)
Hyderabad. [Ol. T] 3. One CC to SRIr SRIDHAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC]
.Hk
HIGH COURT
DATED:131091 '-022
ORDER
C.M.A.No.547 of2007
I5 ll'ii ?u3
.<
1.,:,.
".;\ /v
x-: t<t*ct?
---==---"-
DISMISSINGI-HE GMA WITHOUT CC STS
CR(
iq ltul ZZ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether legal heirs of a government workman whose services are regulated by Fundamental Rules are entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for death during employment.
Whether benefits under Service Pension Rules and Compassionate Appointment disentitle heirs from claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kadhomani vs. Secretary, Department of Home AffairsExplained¶52
Kadhomani vs. Secretary, Department of Home Affairs 1995 (70) FLR 117
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Executive Engineer, Division No.5, Jammikunta
Smt. Ravanaveni Sarojana
R. Venkataiah
R. Vasntha
M. Laxman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
