RPF Constables Recognized As 'Workmen' Under 1923 Employee Compensation Act Despite Armed Forces Status: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a Constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can indeed be considered a "Workman" under Section 2(1)(n) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, despite being categorized as a member of the Armed Forces of the Union due to an amendment in Section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. The appeal challenged a High Court judgment involving a dispute over compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant contested the order of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in favor of the claimants.
A two judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manoj Misra held that the availability of an alternative remedy to apply for compensation under Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, does not render a claim under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, maintainable. The Court further said that the legislative intent was to allow RPF members to benefit from the provisions of the 1923 Act, and there was no explicit exclusion.
The deceased was a Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force (RPF) and died in a work-related accident. His family filed a compensation claim under the 1923 Act. The appellant argued that the deceased, as an RPF Constable, shouldn't be considered a "workman" due to his status as a member of the Armed Forces of the Union.
The Commissioner ruled in favor of the claimants, finding the deceased qualified as a "workman." The appellant appealed to the High Court, which upheld the Commissioner's decision.
Advocate Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Prerana Chaturvedi appeared for the Respondents.
The issues for consideration before Supreme Court were:
(i) Whether a Constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can be considered a "Workman" under Section 2(1)(n) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, even though, due to an amendment in Section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, he is categorized as a member of the Armed Forces of the Union?
(ii) Whether the availability of an alternative remedy to apply for compensation under Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, renders a claim under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, maintainable?
The Court reproduced relevant statutory provisions of:
(i) The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (Now known as Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923) (in short, “the 1923 Act).
(ii) The Indian Railways Act, 1890 (in short “the 1890 Act”).
(iii) The Railways Act, 1989 (in short “the 1989 Act”).
(iv) Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (in short, “the 1957 Act”).
The Court examined the provisions which provided compensation for work-related injuries.
In regard to issue No. (i) the Court concluded that the 1923 Act provisions do apply to a member of the RPF. To make the RPF in compliance with the Indian Constitution, the term "His Majesty’s naval, military or air forces" was replaced with "armed forces of the Union." However, this change alone doesn't exclude RPF members from the 1923 Act. The legislative intent was not to remove RPF members from the 1923 Act's benefits, as confirmed by amendments to the Railways Act and the absence of any explicit exclusion.
Coming to the issue No. (ii) the Court explained that a claim under the 1923 Act is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the 1989 Act. Section 128 of the 1989 Act allows for compensation claims under the 1923 Act or any other applicable law, provided there is no double compensation for the same accident. Since there's no evidence of double compensation in this case, the claim under the 1923 Act is not barred by the existence of an alternative remedy under the 1989 Act.
The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' claim under the 1923 Act was deemed maintainable.
Cause Title: Commanding Officer v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor & Ors., [2023INSC859]
Click here to read/download Judgment
