Himachal Pradesh High Court: Person Engaged Under MNREGA Not Under State's Employment; Can’t Claim Rights Under Workmen/Employees Compensation Act

The Court upheld the dismissal of a claim for compensation filed under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act) by the legal heirs of the deceased labourer employed through Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA). The Commissioner's decision, challenged herein, held that under the Act (now Employees Compensation Act), the Appellants failed to establish the deceased as a workman under the Act. Consequently, despite death during employment, compensation was denied due to the absence of evidence and record regarding relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and Respondents.

A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur held, “After considering provisions of Workmen/Employees Compensation Act as well as that of MNREGA and Scheme formulated thereunder, I am of considered opinion that persons engaged under MNREGA cannot be considered in the employment of the State for claiming rights under the Workmen/Employees Compensation Act.”

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh Chauhan appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Rajeeva Sharma represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellants claimed that the deceased was on duty in course of his employment under the MNREGA Scheme and was doing work of cutting, when a boulder fell and struck the chest of the deceased.

Following his death, a claim Petition was filed for grant of compensation along with interest at the applicable rate by the Appellants. However, the claim was dismissed.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court clarified, “Plea of…appellants that for mechanism provided in the Guidelines to provide ex-gratia payment to unorganized workers, appellants are entitled for the benefits under MNREGA Scheme, is not tenable for the provisions of Guidelines which provide that those unorganized workers who have been registered on eShram portal till 31st March, 2022 are entitled for the scheme benefits including benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) and further that insurance benefits cannot be provided retrospectively. Deceased Ramesh Chand was neither registered on e-Shram nor he could have been registered.”

The Court remarked, “Though Section 28 of the MNREGA provides that provisions of this Act or the Schemes made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of such law, however, it does not mean that Scheme makes the definition of workman or employer and employees or other provisions of Workmen/Employees Compensation Act redundant. This overriding effect is to be considered with reference to the object of the Act and the Scheme made thereunder as well as nature of work to be provided under it.”

The Bench held, “Once it is clear that MNREGA worker is not covered under the definition of Employees’ Compensation Act/WC Act, there is no right to claim compensation under WC Act for death of a person employed under MNREGA/Scheme under MNREGA even if the said death has occurred during the course of employment.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Plea of learned counsel for appellants that every unorganized workers, irrespective of their registration, on e-Shram portal, who suffer injury or death before registration as unorganized workers, should be provided benefits of Guidelines, is not sustainable unless or until Guidelines are modified to such extent or provisions of Guidelines are assailed and held ultra-vires to the extent these provide grant of benefits prospectively only that too on registration of e-Shram portal. This issue cannot be adjudicated and decided in this appeal. Appeal is to be decided on the basis of existing provisions of law as applicable to the case.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Geeta Devi & Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimla & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:11847)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Balbir Singh Chauhan; Advocate Abhishek Thakur

Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Seema Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgement