Whether the workwoman employed in Beedi manufacturing process is covered under the purview of Employees’ Compensation Act? Telangana High Court answers

Telangana High Court

   

Telangana High Court: M Laxman, J. allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits and held that the deceased beedi worker falls under the definition of ‘workman' as per Section 2(n)(ii) and Clause 2 of Schedule II of Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 as well as Section 2(k) of Factories Act, 1948.

A claim was filed seeking compensation under Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 on death of Yeddandi Yellavva, who is the daughter of the appellant herein which was thereby dismissed. Thus, the present appeal was filed assailing the dismissal order as the death happened during the course of employment while rolling the Beedies.

The Court observed that on perusal of Section 2(n) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 states that any person employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule-II, comes under the definition of ‘Workman'. Clause 2 of Schedule-II clearly shows that any person employed otherwise than in clerical capacity in any premises or within the precincts where the manufacturing process is defined under Section 2(k) of Factories Act, 1948 will fall under the definition of ‘workman'.

Further, it was noted that Section 2(k) Factories Act, 1948 also makes it clear that the process of making any article or substance with a view to usage, sale, transport, delivery or disposal is constituted as manufacturing process. The rolling of Beedies is nothing but making of any article or substance with a view to usage or sale or transport. Therefore, the activity of the deceased being the Beedi roller, clearly falls within the definition of a workwoman.

The Court thus held “the order of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Karimnagar, requires being set aside. The matter requires to be remanded for adjudication of the claim on merits”

[Yeddandi Venkataiah v. Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products Ltd., C.M.A.No.2065 of 2002, decided on 09-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate, for the Appellants;

B.G. Ravinder Reddy, Advocate, for the Respondents.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.