Himachal Pradesh High Court: In an appeal filed by the legal heirs of a Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (‘MNREGA) worker against dismissal of their claim under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (‘WC Act’) for compensation since the deceased passed away in the course of employment, a Single Judge Bench of Vivek Singh Thakur, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that MNREGA workers are not workmen/ employee under the WC Act and thus, had no right to claim compensation under the WC Act.
Background
The deceased was employed as a labourer through MNREGA. In 2009, while he was on duty, a boulder struck him on the chest, and he died.
Aggrieved, the appellants- his surviving legal heirs- filed a claim petition for the grant of compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till its realisation and for imposition of a penalty to the extent of 50%. They contended that the deceased was a workman as defined under the WC Act.
After adjudicating the matter, the Commissioner under the WC Act held that the appellants have failed to prove and establish that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the WC Act. Accordingly, it was held that despite death occurring during employment, due to the absence of evidence and record regarding the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondents, the appellants were not entitled to compensation, interest thereon, and penalty for non-payment of compensation under the WC Act. Thus, their claim was rejected by the Commissioner.
Aggrieved, they filed the present petition.
Issues
-
Whether the Commissioner erred in law in not appreciating the provisions of Section 2(1) dd, 2(d), and Schedule II of the WC Act, thus resulting in an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If so, what is its effect?
-
Whether the Commissioner erred in law in not appreciating that a relationship of employer and employee existed between the deceased and the respondents, especially when the evidence regarding the employment was brushed aside by wrongly appreciating the evidence and provisions of MNREGA. If so, what is its effect?
-
Whether the Commissioner erred in law in not appreciating the evidence on record that the deceased was a workman within the meaning of the WC Act, considering the ex-gratia payment of Rs. 25,000 as the full and final payment under MNREGA, thus resulting in wrong findings qua the deceased as a workman. If so, what is its effect?
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that MNREGA was enacted to provide the enhancement of livelihood security in rural areas of the country by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The Court further noted that in Himachal Pradesh, the Government Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, 2006 (‘the Scheme’), was notified under Section 4(1) of MNREGA. Clause 3 of the Scheme provides that entitlement of 100 days guaranteed employment in the financial year is in terms of households, and 100 days entitlement of a household may be shared among the members of household, and within the said entitlement all adult members of household can register and apply for work. Thus, the Court stated that the Scheme did not provide employment to a particular person but rather to the household.
The Court added that though Section 28 of MNREGA provided that provisions of MNREGA or the schemes made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by such law, it did not mean that MNREGA made the definition of workman, employer and employees, or other provisions of WC Act redundant. This overriding effect had to be considered with reference to the object of MNREGA and the schemes made thereunder, as well as the nature of work to be provided under it.
Upon perusal of Section 2(dd) of the WC Act, the Court held that the deceased could never be treated as an employee under the WC Act. After considering provisions of the WC Act, MNREGA, and the Scheme, the Court opined that the persons engaged under MNREGA could not be considered in the employment of the State for claiming rights under the WC Act. Since a MNREGA worker was not covered under the definition of workman/employee under the WC Act, there was no right to claim compensation under the WC Act for the death of a person employed under the MNREGA/ MNREGA Scheme, even if the said death occurred during the course of employment.
The Court also noted that Clause 12 of the Scheme provides entitlement to receive payment of compensation as per provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for non-payment of wages. This Clause also provides payment of an ex-gratia grant of Rs. 25,000, or such amount as may be notified by the Central Government, in case of death or permanent disability by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The Court stated that this Clause provided not only an implied but explicit exclusion of applicability of the WC Act in case of employment under MNREGA and/or the Scheme framed thereunder.
Regarding the plea that appellants were entitled to the benefits under MNREGA provided in the guidelines for providing ex-gratia payment to unorganized workers, the Court held that the appellants were not entitled to those benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana as it was for those unorganized workers who have been registered on eShram portal till 31-03-2022. Further, the insurance benefits could not be provided retrospectively. The Court noted that the deceased was neither registered on the eShram portal nor could he have been registered because at the time of his employment and death, there was no such scheme to provide ex-gratia payment to unorganized workers. Moreover, the guidelines clearly stated that benefits could not be provided retrospectively.
Thus, holding the above, the Court dismissed the appeal.
[Geeta Devi v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, FAO No. 07 of 2014, decided on 01-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Sr. Advocate Balbir Singh Chauhan and Abhishek Thakur
For the respondent: Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
