{"id":302695,"date":"2023-09-30T11:00:52","date_gmt":"2023-09-30T05:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=302695"},"modified":"2023-09-30T10:38:50","modified_gmt":"2023-09-30T05:08:50","slug":"rpf-constable-a-railway-servant-entitled-claim-employees-compensation-act-1923-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/30\/rpf-constable-a-railway-servant-entitled-claim-employees-compensation-act-1923-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"RPF Constable a railway servant; entitled to claim under Employees Compensation Act, 1923: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal against judgment and order passed by Gujarat High Court dismissing appeal under Section 30<\/a> of Employees Compensation Act, 1923<\/a> (‘1923 Act’) against order passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. upheld the maintainability of claim of compensation of Railway Protection Special Force (‘RPF’) Constable disputed to be part of the Armed Forces of the Union.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/p>\n

Respondent’s husband was appointed as a Constable in the RPF on 27-12-2006, passed away on 23-04-2008 in an accident during course of employment. On his death, the respondent along with other heirs of the deceased filed a claim for compensation under the 1923 Act<\/a>. The said claim was resisted by RPF on the ground that the deceased was part of the Armed Forces of the Union and not a workman, and hence, the claim under 1923 Act<\/a> was not maintainable.<\/p>\n

The Workmen Compensation Commissioner found the claim petition maintainable since the workman-employer relationship between the deceased and the non-claimant was admitted to the non-claimant, deceased died in an accident during employment. The deceased being a ‘Railway servant’ as per the provisions of Section 2(34)<\/a> of the Railways Act, 1989<\/a> (‘1989 Act’) was deemed to be a workman under Section 2(1)(n)(i)<\/a> of 1923 Act<\/a>. The amount payable was determined at Rs 4,33,820, directed to be paid within 30 days with an interest @9%.<\/p>\n

In the first appeal against the Commissioner, the High Court refused to entertain the submissions that ‘workman’ under 1923 Act<\/a> excluded a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, hence, the instant appeal.<\/p>\n

Issues framed by the Court<\/p>\n