Baby Kaur & Ors. v. Mohd Umar & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 13 Feb 2023 · 2023:DHC:1410

Manoj Kumar Ohri

FAO 269/2018

2023:DHC:1410

labor appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the employees’ compensation claim for fresh consideration, emphasizing liberal construction of the EC Act and granting liberty to file a fresh claim.

Full Text

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001410

FAO 269/2018
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.02.2023

FAO 269/2018 and CM APPL. 39109/2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
BABY KAUR & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain, Advocate

VERSUS

MOHD UMAR & ANR. …..Respondents
Through: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

(ORAL)

1. Present none for the respondents.

2. It is noted that respondents stand served, however, none has appeared on their behalf on the last two dates of hearing.

3. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘EC Act’), the appellants have assailed the order dated 06.03.2018/09.03.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, District North-West, Delhi in Case No.WCD/24/WD/17/177.

4. Mr. R.K. Nain, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that in the present appeal, the appellants have not only assailed order dated 06.03.2018/09.03.2018, but also the order dated 17.08.2017, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh case. He further submits that vide the impugned order dated 06.03.2018/09.03.2018, learned Commissioner dismissed the claim petition for ‘non-pursuit’ and prays that the matter may be remanded back for consideration on merits.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the entire case record.

6. A perusal of the record would show that in the claim petition, it was claimed that deceased/Sh. Amar Singh was employed as a bar bender in the premises of respondent No.1 and was drawing wages @ Rs.15,000/- per month. On 29.07.2016, during his employ, while he was engaged in the work of cutting of iron bar, he met with an accident as the machine on which he was working was defective (having electric current). As a result of the accident, the deceased was electrocuted resulting in his death.

7. During the pendency of the claim petition, the same was ordered to be adjudicated by the learned Commissioner, East District. The claimants preferred an application seeking withdrawal of the claim petition from the jurisdiction of East District, with liberty to file a fresh one, but the same was dismissed on 17.02.2017. The claimants preferred a fresh claim application dated 07.03.2017 before the learned Commissioner, District West and it was again transferred to the learned Commissioner, District East. On 17.08.2017, they preferred an application for withdrawal of the claim petition with liberty to file afresh. By an order of the same date, the learned Commissioner, District East, allowed withdrawal of the claim petition however did not grant liberty to file afresh. The claimants preferred a review application against order dated 17.08.2017, but the same was dismissed by the learned Commissioner, District East, Delhi vide order dated 06.09.2017. The order dated 06.09.2017 was assailed by the claimants before this Court by way of CM(M) 1378/2017. In the course of these proceedings, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court noted that order dated 06.09.2017 was cryptic and non-speaking. The order dated 17.08.2017 was set aside and the learned Commissioner, District East was directed to pass a fresh order on the claimants’ application for withdrawal with liberty. In pursuance, the matter came up before the learned Commissioner, District East and was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 06.03.2018/09.03.2018, whereby again the claimants’ application for withdrawal was dismissed without giving liberty to file the claim petition afresh.

8. There is no gainsaying that labour statutes such as the EC Act constitute ‘beneficial legislation’ for the welfare of employees and should be liberally construed in their favour. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Jaya Biswal and Others v. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Another reported as (2016) 11 SCC 201 has opined thus:-

“20. The EC Act is a welfare legislation enacted to secure compensation to the poor workmen who suffer from injuries at their place of work. This becomes clear from a perusal of the preamble of the Act which reads as under: “An Act to provide for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident.” This further becomes clear from a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which reads as under: “… The growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, along with the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible, from hardship arising from accidents. An additional advantage of legislation of this type is that, by increasing the importance for the employer of adequate safety devices, it reduces the number of accidents to workmen in a manner that cannot be achieved by official inspection. Further, the encouragement given to employers to provide adequate medical treatment for their workmen should mitigate the effects to such accidents as do occur. The benefits so conferred on the workman added to the increased

sense of security which he will enjoy, should render industrial life more attractive and thus increase the available supply of labour. At the same time, a corresponding increase in the efficiency of the average workman may be expected.” (emphasis supplied)”

9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded back to the Court of learned Commissioner, District East/North-East, Delhi for consideration on merits.

10. Accordingly, the order dated 06.03.2018/09.03.2018 is set aside and the matter is directed to be listed before the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, District East/North-East on 01.03.2023 at the first instance.

11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms alongwith the pending application.

12. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, District East, Delhi for information.

JUDGE FEBRUARY 13, 2023

Baby Kaur & Ors. v. Mohd Umar & Anr.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation