COMPENSATION UNDER WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP IS A MUST

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

The Workmen compensation act is beneficial to the employees and it paves for the payment of compensation to the workers while getting injury in an accident in duty.  The compensation is proportionate to the injury sustained and the loss of earning capacity.  The injury should be obtained by means of an accident which arised out of and in the course of employment.  In a claim for compensation under the workmen compensation act it should be proved that an accident has occurred due to which injuries are sustained or death is occurred; such accident has arisen out of and in the course of employment and the employer and employee relationship should prevail.   In the absence of ‘employer’ employee relationship no compensation is liable to be paid to the injured person.   This has been explained in the following decided case law:

In ‘Prapulla Chandra Satyanarayana  V. Smt. Prapulla Chandra Appalakonda and another’ – 2012-I-LLJ-454 (AP) Shri Prapulla Chandra Satyanarayana filed petition under Workmen Compensation Act, for payment of compensation with interest.   His allegation is that he is a licensed auto driver and the owner of the auto is Prapulla Chandra Appalakonda.  He was drawing monthly salary of Rs.3000/- per month.  He met with an accident resulting sustaining grievous injuries on his left leg, ankle and was immediately admitted in the hospital where he underwent surgery and disability is assessed as 30%.  The Police registered a case under Section 338 of IPC.  Due to the above accident he became unfit for any manual labour and lost earning capacity.

The owner of the auto submitted that the applicant is a licensed auto driver on a monthly wage of Rs.3000/- and he sustained injuries during the course of employment and that she is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicant as the vehicle in question is duly insured with the insurer.

The insurer submitted that the applicant and the owner of the auto are living in the same house as wife and husband and there is no employer and employee relationship between them.   The present petition is collusive and motivated and therefore the applicant is not entitled for any compensation.

The High Court found that before the Tribunal in the cross examination by the insurer the applicant admitted that he is residing at 44-1/346 Thatichetlapalem Leprosy Colony, Vishakapatnam along with his wife and three children.  The opposite party is other than his wife.  The High Court analyzed the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(n) of the Workmen compensation Act as follows:

A railway servant as defined in Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989) not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II; or

(i)(a)(a) a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship;

 (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft;

(c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle.

(d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company

 and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company as the case may be, is registered in India, or

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 a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to dependents or any of them.

The High Court held that in the present case it can be safely inferred that the applicant will not come under the definition of workman.   Since the injured applicant is none other than the husband of the owner of the auto, he will not fall under the definition of workman and therefore he is not entitled to claim any compensation from the insurance company.  The Tribunal below while discussing the evidence on record came to the positive finding that the applicant will not come under the definition of workman which in the view of the High Court is not erroneous and the court found no grounds to differ with the finding of the Tribunal below.