This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Employees Compensation Act, 1923, i.e. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad, Region, Faizabad dated 11.03.2015 in Employees Compensation Case No. 08 of 2011(Smt. Ruby vs. Branch Manager Grameen Bank, Inayat Nagar, Faizabad and others).
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that she is the wife of late Preetam Lal, who was employed as Safai Karmchari in Baroda U.P. Grameen Bank, Inayat Nagar, Faizabad Region, Faizabad. He was being paid monthly salary of Rs.1050/- per month and while being employed as Safari Karmchari , was also engaged with the respondent's bank for the bringing tea and water etc. for the employees of the Bank and the customers of the Bank. and he also used to run the diesel generator set for the bank.
On 12.07.2010 in the evening, the petitioner's husband was asked to give the water to one of the employees of the Bank, but when Late Preetam Lal went to use the hand pump set-up in the Bank premises, he was electrocuted. At the time of his death, he was aged about 30 years and due to his extra duties of supplies of water and tea to the employees of the Bank, he was able to earn Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month. On his accidental death, the petitioner filed an appeal for paying of ten times compensation of the amount which was being earned by Late husband. The Bank disputed the liability and after taking evidence the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad Region, Faizabad rejected the case of the petitioner arbitrarily by holding that the petitioner's Late husband was not an employee of the Bank.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to definition of employee given under Section 2(dd) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and has referred to Sub-clause-3, thereof which is as follows:-
"2(dd) (iii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to any employee who has been injured shall, where the employee is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them;"
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Section 2(e) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 which defines an employer. Section 2 (e) is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"2(e) "employer" includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of [an employee] are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the [employee] has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the [employee] is working for him;"
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Clause-(XIX) of Schedule-II, attached to the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, a person employed for generating, transforming, transmitting or distributing electrical energy or in generating the supply of gas etc. is also considered to be in Scheduled employment and, therefore, on his accidental death, the compensation can be claimed under the Act by his dependent.
It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that although the husband of the petitioner was employed on a contractual basis as a Safai Karmchari, he was also a contractual employee, in so far as running a diesel generator set in the Bank premises is concerned, therefore the contract of employment with regard to running of diesel generator set would in fact be considered as sufficient ground to claim compensation for accidental death due to electrocution from the said generator set.
Sri Vinay Shanker, who appears for the Bank, has pointed out from the order impugned that it was found on the basis of evidence adduced by the employees of the Bank as well as the petitioner's witnesses, that petitioner's Late husband was initially engaged as a Safai Karmchari for cleaning the Bank premises for half an hour each day in the morning, on a salary of Rs.1050/- per month, which was transferred in the Bank Account No.4987 till October 2009 only. After October, 2009 the petitioner's husband stopped working as a Safai Karmchari with the Bank, and other persons were engaged, who were paid their wages as a Safai Karmchari thereafter.
With regard to the running of diesel generator set for supply of electricity in the case of Power failure, Late Preetam Lal had entered into a contract with the Bank for an amount of Rs. 5,500/- per month up to March 2010.
The amount of Rs. 5,500/- per month for running the diesel generator for supply of electricity through diesel generator set by Late Preetam Lal was transferred in his Account No.4987 every month. Since April, 2010, Sri Preetam Lal entered into a new contract for supply of electricity through diesel generator set @ Rs.7,000 per month with the Bank. The amount of Rs. 7,000 was also transferred each month up to July, 2010 in the Bank account of Late Preetam Lal for the supply of electricity through diesel generator set which he ensured up to June, 2010.
The learned counsel for the respondent has read out the statement of Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, the then Bank Manager, who had worked in the Bank with effect from 2007 up to October, 2010.
Having heard the rival contentions, this Court has gone through the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 carefully. From the perusal of the same, it is evident that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad Region, Faizabad i.e. Prescribed Authority has found that the petitioner's Late husband continued to work as Safai Karmchari on payment of Rs. 1050/- per month up to October, 2009. With regard to supply of electricity through diesel generator set, the petitioner's Late husband could not be said to be an employee of the Bank and he was not under any contractual employment with the Bank at the time of his death in July, 2010.
The employee concerned can be said to be an employee within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the Act, if he renders a service on payment of honorary/consolidated wages etc. In the case of the petitioner's Late husband, he had entered into a contract to supply electricity through diesel generator set initially @ Rs. 5,500/- per month, which was later on revised with effect from April, 2010 to Rs. 7,000/- per month.
It was a mode of self employment of late husband of the petitioner, Preetam Lal and his death had occurred not during the course of his employment with the the Bank but during the course of self-employment.
There is no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order.
The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019/Vinay/-