JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for appellant Union of India and learned Advocate Mr. YV Shah for respondent workman Ninama Sadiyabhai Titabhai. 2. By filing this appeal, appellants have challenged judgment and order passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Godhra vide Exh. 56 in WC Application No. 58 of 2004 decided on 20th December, 2006. WC Commissioner Godhra has awarded amount of compensation of compensation in favour of respondent claimant, Rs.4,06,656.00 with 9 per cent interest from date of accident till date of realization thereof and 25 per cent penalty of Rs.1,01,664.00 also awarded in favour of respondent claimant, with costs of Rs.11,000.00 in favour of respondent claimant. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh submitted that accident occurred on 15.5.2000 wherein both legs of respondent workman came to be amputated below knee while discharging his duties and protecting railway property. He further submitted that after said incident, railway administration has offered alternative employment to respondent in post of Commercial Clerk at Godhra and respondent was asked to undergo training at Udaipur but respondent expressed his inability to travel to Udaipur for training. He further submitted that Special Civil Application No.24085 of 2005 was filed by respondent seeking voluntary retirement and for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds as per applicable Scheme and under section 47 of Disabilities Act, 1995. He further submitted that respondent was permitted by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.6.2006 to retire voluntarily from service with effect from 1.4.2003 and railway administration was directed to consider case of son of respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. He further submitted that it was also directed that WC Case No. 58 of 2004 which was pending should be decided as early as possible preferably on or before 31.12.2006. Railway Administration has accepted prayer of respondent of voluntary retirement and thereafter son of respondent was appointed in railways on compassionate grounds. He further submitted that in the meanwhile, railway administration filed written statement in Workmen's Compensation Case inter alia contending that the provisions of WC Act, 1923 are not applicable to member of Railway Protection Force and Armed Force of the Union of India. He further submitted that in the meanwhile, railway administration filed written statement in Workmen's Compensation Case inter alia contending that the provisions of WC Act, 1923 are not applicable to member of Railway Protection Force and Armed Force of the Union of India. He further submitted that Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation vide its judgment and order dated 28.12.2006, allowed application of respondent and directed railway administration to pay compensation of Rs.4,06,656.00 with 9 per cent interest per annum from date of accident till payment, Rs.1,01,664.00 as penalty @ 25 per cent of awarded amount and costs of Rs.11,000.00 which is under challenge in this appeal. He submitted that WC Commissioner has failed to appreciate that under section 2(1)(n), 'workman' does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of Armed Forces of Union. He further submitted that it ought to have been appreciated by WC Commissioner that Railway Protection Force is constituted and maintained by Central Government as an Armed Force of the Union as specifically provided in section 3 of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and, therefore, provisions of WC Act, 1923 are not applicable to Railway Protection Force. He further submitted that WC Commissioner ought to have held that he has no jurisdiction to pass impugned judgment and award. He further submitted that WC Commissioner has committed an error in interpreting section 10 of RPF Act, 1957 which holds that Director General and every member of the Force shall, for all purposes, be regarded as railway servants within the meaning of Indian Railways Act, 1890 and shall be entitled to exercise powers conferred on railway servants by or under that Act. Section 10 of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 merely authorises a member of the force to exercise powers conferred on railway servants by or under Indian Railways Act, 1890. Aforesaid section does not override provisions of WC Act, 1923. He also submitted that WC Commissioner has failed to appreciate section 19 of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 which lays down that nothing contained in Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or ID Act, 1947 or Factories Act, 1948 or any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial dispute in force in a State shall apply to members of the force. He further submitted that by virtue of aforesaid section also, WC Act, 1923 cannot be said to be applying to members of RPF. He further submitted that by virtue of aforesaid section also, WC Act, 1923 cannot be said to be applying to members of RPF. He also emphasized that Commissioner has failed to appreciate deposition of Balchand Shekhawat, witness of Railway Administration recorded at Exh. 48. He also submitted that WC Commissioner has committed an error in holding that Members of the Force who were enrolled prior to 1985 continued to be governed under WC Act, 1923. He further submitted that after amendment of RPF Act, members of existing force were required to exercise their option in writing within 30 days from commencement of RPF Act to retire from service and in absence of such option, members were deemed to be continued in service. A member who has not exercised an option to retire and has continued will be governed by amended Act and cannot claim compensation under WC Act, 1923. He further submitted that WC Commissioner has failed to appreciate that respondent has not suffered loss of employment on account of accident. He furtehr submitted that it ought to appreciated by WC Commissioner that respondent was offered alternative employment, thereafter, in compliance with order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 21.6.2006 in Special Civil Application NO. 24085 of 2005, the respondent is permitted to voluntary retire and matter regarding granting compassionate appointment to his son is pending consideration at head quarter office. He further submitted that respondent cannot have voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment of his son on one hand and compensation of more than five lacs with interest @ 9 per cent on the other hand. He further submitted that WC Commissioner has erred in directing payment of penalty. He further submitted that Commissioner has failed to appreciate that respondent was offered alternative employment and there has not been any default on the part of appellant railway administration justifying payment of penalty or interest. In light of aforesaid contentions, following questions of law have been raised by learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh as referred to in para 6 of memo of appeal: “(A) Whether the Commissioner has committed an error in law in holding that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are applicable to member of Railway Protection Force, an Armed Force of the Union of India? Ramnandan Singh as referred to in para 6 of memo of appeal: “(A) Whether the Commissioner has committed an error in law in holding that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are applicable to member of Railway Protection Force, an Armed Force of the Union of India? (B) Whether the Commissioner has committed an error in law in holdingthat the respondent is a 'workman' as defined in section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? (C) Whether the order passed by the Commissioner grantingcompensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 suffers from an illegality considering that the respondent was offered alternative employment as Commercial Clerk which he refused, that the respondent is permitted to retire voluntarily and that the issue regarding appointingthe son of respondent on compassionate ground is under consideration as directed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application NO. 24085 of 2005 vide order dated 21.6.2006? (D) Whether the Commissioner has erred in law in directing payment of penalty?” 4. On other hand, learned Advocate Mr. YV Shah appearing for respondent workman has submitted that respondent was appointed in RPF Department as Head Constable on 27th March, 1976 and wasreceiving salary of Rs.6008.00 per month. He further submitted that on 15.5.2000, he was having his duties on Samlaya Out Post during which, while he had been going for protecting railway property in railway premises, meanwhile, one goods train which was stationary came in motion all of a sudden and resulted in accident wherein both of his legs are cut off below knee and therefore medical treatment was taken at Railway Hospital at Baroda and accordingly, Railway Doctor has given certificate under provisions of WC Act, 1923 and it amounts to 100 per cent disability and therefore, aforesaid application was filed by respondent before WC Commissioner claiming compensation. He further submitted that before WC Commissioner, after receiving notices from Commissioner, written statement was filed by appellant at Exh. 7 raising same contentions before WC Commissioner. He further submitted that before WC Commissioner, on behalf of present respondent, vide Exh. 2, documents 1 to 8 were produced wherein Mark 2/1 is xerox copy of medical certificate of Railway Doctor; mark 2/2 is the salary of respondent; mark 2/5 is copy of letter of respondent demanding compensation. Vide Exh.3, vakalatnama of one Shri JK Vaid has been filed. Vide Exh. 2, documents 1 to 8 were produced wherein Mark 2/1 is xerox copy of medical certificate of Railway Doctor; mark 2/2 is the salary of respondent; mark 2/5 is copy of letter of respondent demanding compensation. Vide Exh.3, vakalatnama of one Shri JK Vaid has been filed. Vide Exh. 5, vakalatnama of Shri KN Soni is filed on behalf of railway administration. Vide Exh. 8, documents have been produced on behalf of railway administration wherein mark 8/1 is letter of RPF Vadodara dated 26.3.2003. Mark 8/3 is letter written to applicant dated 1.7.2003. Mark 8/3 is letter regarding alternative employment dated 21.6.2002. Copy of judgment in Special Civil Application NO. 24085 of 2005 is produced on behalf of applicant at Exh. 10. Vide Exh. 11, application is filed on behalf of railway administration raising certain additional contentions. Issues have been framed by WC Commissioner vide Exh. 17. Vide Exh. 18, application was made for examining claimant through Court Commissioner as applicant is able to appear before concerned court but that application was subsequently not pressed by applicant as per Exh. 23. At Exh. 25, deposition of applicant Ninama Sadiyabhai is recorded. As per mark 26/1 produced at Exh. 26, photograph of applicant is produced before WC Commissioner. Purshis for closure of evidence on behalf of respondent is given at Exh. 34. Vide Exh. 29, copy of judgment of this court in Special Civil Application No.24085 of 2005 is produced. Vide Exh. 30, application is submitted by applicant seeking production of certain documents from opponents “present appellants in response to which, vide Exh. 33, establishment” present appellants produced certain documents as per sr.no.1 to 11 which were given Exh.37 to 46 with consent of parties. At Exh. 48, deposition of Balsing Samrathsing Shekhavat on oath is recorded. Vide Exh. 51, on behalf of applicant, copy of report of accident case of Vinodchandra Purohit from RPF Department is produced and vide mark 51/2, copy of disability certificate in respect of case of Vinodchandra Purohit is produced and thereafter, written arguments on behalf of applicant present respondent is submitted vide Exh. 52 and written arguments on behalf of appellants are produced at Exh. 53. Thereafter, WC Commissioner has framed the issues. 5. 52 and written arguments on behalf of appellants are produced at Exh. 53. Thereafter, WC Commissioner has framed the issues. 5. WC Commissioner has examined issue whether relationship of employer and employee is established or not and whether it is proved by applicant that he is a workman under Workmen's Compensation Act or not. WC Commissioner considered that respondent herein was appointed on 26.3.76 in RPF Department as constable and, therefore, relationship of employer and employee was established since said fact was admitted by railway administration in their reply at Exh. 10. Thereafter, WC Commissioner examined contention of railway administration that present respondent is not covered by definition of workman under WC Act, 1923. While examining that contention of railway administration, WC Commissioner considered submission of present respondent in that regard that all workmen under Railway Protection Force Act were being considered as workmen of Railway and Amendment in Railway Protection Force has come into operation with effect from 18.9.85 wherein Armed Force Act is applicable to workmen of Railway Protection Force and on that basis, railway administration submitted that respondent claimant is not covered by definition of workman under WC Act, 1923. In that regard, one decision (1993) 23 Administrative Tribunal Cases 601 Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Camp, Nagpur Bench was cited and it was submited that in said decision also, member of RPF died on 31.5.66 and it was held that Armed Force Act cannot be made applicable to him. WC Commissioner considered said decision and then considered submission of claimant that after amendment also, no benefit of any nature whatsoever are being extended under Armed Forces Act to members of RPF and they are being considered to be workmen of Railways for all purposes. WC Commissioner also considered as per Railway Pension Rules, 1993 and other laws relating to railway workmen and as per provisions of Railways Act, 1890, members of RPF are covered by definition of railway workmen. While examining matter further in respect of said contention of establishment, WC Commissioner considered deposition of witness for railway administration at Exh. 48 Shri Balsing Chandrasing Shekhavat wherein it was stated by said witness in his cross examination that the member of RPF is being considered as railway employee and also member of Armed Forces. It was also deposed by him that in document Exh. 41, report is submitted under WC Act, 1923 at Sr. No. 18. 48 Shri Balsing Chandrasing Shekhavat wherein it was stated by said witness in his cross examination that the member of RPF is being considered as railway employee and also member of Armed Forces. It was also deposed by him that in document Exh. 41, report is submitted under WC Act, 1923 at Sr. No. 18. It was also deposed by said witness that as per 1990 Railway Board Circular, option has to be asked to each employee asking every such employee whether they have to remain under WC Act or otherwise. While considering said statement made by witness for railway administration, WC Commissioner considered that an important question was asked by representative for workman to said witness whether present workman was asked anything in that regard of option or not and it was answered by witness that he has no knowledge thereof. Thereafter, WC Commissioner considered railway board circular Exh. 26/1 and considered that WC Act, 1923 is applicable to those who are recruited prior to 1985 in Railway Protection Force and after amendment, an option was required to be offered to respective workmen whether they have to remain under WC Act, 1923 or to remain under the Arms Act. Considering deposition of witness for railway administration on oath and record of matter and provisions of circular Exh. 26/1, WC Commissioner held that railway administration has not been able to establish that such option as per provisions of said circular was given to present workman or not and, therefore, provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are applicable to respondent herein. On that basis, WC Commissioner has come to conclusion that concerned employee applicant is a workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 6. Before WC Commissioner, on behalf of applicant, Exh. 55 was produced wherein mark 55/1 is copy of Railway Protection Force, 1957 Amendment Act, 2003, copy of which was also produced by advocate for establishment before WC Commissioner. Considering section 10 and 11 thereof, it was held that members of RPF are considered as railway workmen. WC Commissioner also considered section 15 and 19 of RPF Act wherein it has been clarified as to which laws would not apply to members of Force wherein WC Act, 1923 has not been included. Considering section 10 and 11 thereof, it was held that members of RPF are considered as railway workmen. WC Commissioner also considered section 15 and 19 of RPF Act wherein it has been clarified as to which laws would not apply to members of Force wherein WC Act, 1923 has not been included. Therefore, WC Commissioner considered decision (1993) 23 Administrative Tribunal Cases 601 Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Camp, Nagpur Bench relied upon by present respondent as referred to above and no policy has been declared by Central Government whether Armed Force Member is covered by WC Act, 1923 or not. It is more so when it has not been established by Railway Administration that any option was given to present respondent after amendment in RPF Act or not. Then WC Commissioner also considered decision of Labour Court, Godhra in WC Case No.13 of 1997 against Railway establishment wherein it has been held that a member of RPF could be considered as workman of Railway, provisions of WC Act, 1923 are applicable to such workmen. First appeal No. 782/2004 filed against said decision by railway administration has been dismissed by this court. Claimant was relying upon decision of Allahabad High Court Division Bench reported in 1997 TAC 306 wherein it has been held by Allahabad High Court that as per provisions of section 2(1)(n) of Workmen's Compensation Act, said Act is applicable to members of RPF. Therefore, in aforesaid circumstances and considering record and section 2(1)(n) of WC Act, 1923 and Schedule 2(12)(13), it was held by WC Commissioner that applicant is workman under the WC Act, 1923 and on that basis, answered issue no.1 and 2 in affirmative and rejected contentions raised by railway administration in that regard. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for appellants has raised only one contention that workmen's Compensation Commissioner has no jurisdiction as respondent is not workman within meaning of section 2(1)(n) of W.C. Act, 1923. Except that, in respect to quantum as well as whether accident occurred during course of employment or not, for that, no contention is raised by learned Advocate Mr. Singh before this court on behalf of present appellants. In short, except jurisdiction question, no other contention is raised by learned advocate Mr. Singh on merits. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Except that, in respect to quantum as well as whether accident occurred during course of employment or not, for that, no contention is raised by learned Advocate Mr. Singh before this court on behalf of present appellants. In short, except jurisdiction question, no other contention is raised by learned advocate Mr. Singh on merits. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. YV Shah for respondent workman has shown to this court medical certificate of assessment of percentage of loss of earning capacity under WC Act which has been considered to be 100 per cent. Said certificate is dated 27.3.2002 given by Railway Doctor. He also shown to this court one Circular issued by Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board. It is dated 20.3.1991. A question has been raised whether RPF/RPSF Staff who were appointed before 1985 would be entitled for payment under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or not as they were workers at the time of appointment and can the service conditions be changed to detriment of appointees. This question has been clarified by Railway Board that as per definition of workman, WC Act does not apply to members of Armed Forces of the Union. The RPF stood excluded from the purview of the Act. The RPF Act as amended provides for any member of the existing force to exercise his option in writing within 30 days from commencement of RPF Amendment Act to retire from service and in absence of such an option, member is deemed to be continued in service. It has also been clarified in said Circular that members of Force who were appointed before 1985 and who have not exercised such an option cannot therefore claim benefit under WC Act and this would not constitute any change in service conditions of the members to their detriment. Said circular dated 20.3.91 was produced before WC Commissioner at Exh. 26 and was also considered by WC Commissioner. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for appellants has relied upon decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of N.H. Lamani vs. Central Government, Ministry for Railways, New Delhi, in Writ Petition No.10543 of 1991 dated June 21, 1993. I have considered said decision. Said decision is not applicable to facts of this case because it is relating to service matter where dismissal was challenged by concerned employee of Railway Protection Force. I have considered said decision. Said decision is not applicable to facts of this case because it is relating to service matter where dismissal was challenged by concerned employee of Railway Protection Force. He also relied upon one decision of Jharkhand High Court in case of Chief Security Commissioner vs Shrista Devi, reported in 2002 (94) FLR page 842. I have considered said decision. In said decision, Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court has not considered section 10 of RPF Act and has also not considered section 19 of RPF Act but only considered section 2(1)(n) of WC Act, 1923. Question of maintainability of the proceedings under WC Act was raised and it was contended that after amendment in section 3(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, by amending Act No.60 of 1985, the deceased constable, who was a member of “Force” became a member of “Armed Force of Union.” Section 2(n)(ii) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 debars a person to be treated as a workman, who is working in capacity of a member of Armed Forces of the Union. Relevant observations made by Jharkhand High Court in para 4 and 5 of said decision are reproduced as under: 4. Appellants herein had raised the question of maintainability of the proceeding under the said Act. It was contended that after amendment in Section 3(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, by amending Act No. 60 of 1985, the deceased constable, who was a member of “Force” became a member of “Armed Force of the Union”. Section 2(n) (ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 debars a person to be treated as a workman who is working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union. 5. The accident took place on 23.8.1987, when admittedly the deceased constable was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union and, therefore, he was not a workman within the meaning of the Act and a proceeding under the Act for compensation on behalf of his widow was not maintainable.” 10. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of present case as examined by WC Commissioner, according to my opinion, said decision of Jharkhand High Court is not applicable to present case and is not helpful to appellants. 11. Learned Advocate Mr. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of present case as examined by WC Commissioner, according to my opinion, said decision of Jharkhand High Court is not applicable to present case and is not helpful to appellants. 11. Learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh also relied upon decision of Calcutta High Court reported in 2000 (2) LLJ 894 in case of General Manager, South Eastern Railway versus Soyaba Khatoon. The only question that was arising for determination in said application under Article 227 of Constitution was, whether a head constable under RPF is a workman within the meaning of WC Act, 1923 or not. Answer given by Calcutta High Court is that, RPF Personnel although deemed to be Railway servant for the purpose of Indian Railways Act, cannot be deemed to be a workman within the meaning of section 2 (n) of the 1923 Act, therefore, application preferred by workman before WC Commissioner was not maintainable, Commissioner exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law by entertaining such dispute and workmen compensation commissioner has no jurisdiction. 12. Learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for appellants has also relied upon decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of S. Appanna v/s. General Manager, SE Railway, 2003 ALD-4-470: 2005 ACJ-O-663. I have considered said decision. Andhra Pradesh High Court has not examined issue whether RPF Member or employee is covered under definition of workman as defined under section 2(1)(n) of WC Act, 1923 or not. Opportunity was given to concerned claimant to file application before railway claims tribunal and delay was condoned by Andhra Pradesh High Court and, therefore, said decision is not applicable to case before hand on facts and is therefore not helpful to appellants. Except that, no other decision has been cited by learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh before this Court. Except the submissions recorded herein above, no other submission is made by learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh before this court. 13. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned judgment and order passed by WC Commissioner. Question is that when applicant was appointed on 27.3.1976 in RPF Department as constable, on that occasion, he was an employee of railway administration. Railway Protection Force Act, 1985 came into force with effect from 22nd August, 1985. 13. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned judgment and order passed by WC Commissioner. Question is that when applicant was appointed on 27.3.1976 in RPF Department as constable, on that occasion, he was an employee of railway administration. Railway Protection Force Act, 1985 came into force with effect from 22nd August, 1985. Object or principal features of Act are as under: “The Railway Protection Force has been constituted under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 for ensuring better protection and security of railway property. This force has now been in existence for a period of 28 years. During this period, the sanctioned strength of the Force has considerably increased. The responsibilities of the Force have also grown in magnitude as well as in complexity. 2. The uninterrupted and secure movement of goods including essential commodities and passengers on the railways is of vital stategic importance. The railways not only play a very important and crucial role in the economic and industrial growth but also in the security and defence of the country. The Railway Protection Force Act,1957 in its present form is considered inadequate to meet requirements of the Force in the present day context especially in view of the emerging responsibilities which Railway Protection Force now perform and which may devolve on it in the days to come. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 as to make this Force an Armed Force of the Union and to make it more efficient and effective instrument for discharging its responsibilities. 3. The following are the principal features of the Bill:- (a) Declaring the Railway Protection Force an Armed Force of the Union and consequential changes in the nomenclature of different ranks in the Force in the Force in consonance with its changed character as an Armed Force. (b) Conferment of additional powers on the members of the Force such as to arrest without warrant, to restrain misbehaviour on the part of the members of the Force, to effectively intervene for preventing imminent danger to the life of a person concerned with carrying on the work of the railways for the better protection of the railway property. (c) Restriction have been proposed on the right to form association on the lines of similar restrictions in other Armed Forces of the Union (clause 13 of the Bill). (c) Restriction have been proposed on the right to form association on the lines of similar restrictions in other Armed Forces of the Union (clause 13 of the Bill). (d) Conferment of additional powers on the superior officers of the Force for enforcement of discipline, imposition of penalties for various offences, regarding procedure for Force custody. 4. This bill seeks to achieve the above objects.” 14. Section 10 reads as under: “10. Officers and members of the Force to be deemed to be railway servants.-Director General and every member of the Force shall for all purposes be regarded as railway servants within the meaning of the Indian Railways Act, 1890,other than Chapter VI-A thereof, and shall been titled to exercise the powers conferred on railway servants by or under that Act.” 15. Section 19 reads as under: “19. Certain Acts not to apply to members of the Force.-Nothing contained in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947or the Factories Act, 1948, or any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in a State shall apply to matters of the Force.” 16. Section 2(1) (n) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 reads as under: “'workman' means any person who is - (i) a railway servant as defined in clause 34 of section 2 of the Railways Act,1989 (24 of 1989)not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or (ia) (a) a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship, (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft. (c) a person recruited for work abroad by a company and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India or (ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union and any reference to a workman who has been injured, shall where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them.” 17. Schedule II of W.C. Act, 1923 is providing list of persons who, subject to provisions of section 2(1)(n) are included in the definition of workmen, those who are employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity or on a railway, in connection with the operation, repair or maintenance of a lift or a vehicle propelled by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity or in connection with the loading or unloading of any such vehicle. In light of aforesaid various provisions of Railway Protection Force Act and Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and facts of present case, question was considered by WC Commissioner. 18. As per section 2(1)(n) (i) of WC Act, 1923, workmen means a railway servant as defined in clause 34 of section 2 of Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989 not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II whether the contract of employment was made before or after passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union and any reference to a workman who has been injured, shall where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them. This section clarified two things. This section clarified two things. One is that workman means a railway servant as defined in clause 34 of section 2 of Railways Act, 1989 and the other is that workman means any person employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union and any reference to a workman who has been injured, shall where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependents or any of them thus any person working in the capacity of the Armed Forces of Union has been excluded but railway servant under Railways Act, 1989 is included. 19. Section 10 of the Railway Protection Force Act is having deeming fiction that Officers and members of the force to be deemed to be railway servants. It provides that Director General and every member of the Force shall for all purposes be regarded as railway servants within the meaning of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, other than Chapter VI-A thereof, and shall be entitled to exercise the powers conferred on railway servants by or under that Act. Therefore, members of Force are deemed to be Railway Servants. Therefore, railway servants defined under Railways Act are considered to be workmen within the meaning of workman as defined under the WC Act,1923. So, member of Force are considered or regarded as railway servant for all purposes within the meaning of Indian Railways Act. According to provisions of WC Act, railway servants are covered or included in the definition of workmen, therefore, WC Act, 1923 is applicable to railway servants. Railway Protection Force Officers are not police officers within the meaning of section 25 of Evidence Act. 20. Section 19 of RPF Act provides that nothing contained in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Factories Act, 1948, or any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in a State shall apply to matters of the Force. Thus, as per section 19 of RPF Act, it cannot be said that the provisions contained in WC Act, 1923 shall not apply to matters of the Force. Thus, as per section 19 of RPF Act, it cannot be said that the provisions contained in WC Act, 1923 shall not apply to matters of the Force. Therefore, it can be inferred that the provisions of WC Act are applicable to member of RPF because under section 10 of RPF Act, they are deemed to be, regarded for all purposes, as railway servants within the meaning of Indian Railways Act, 1890. Railway servants are covered by definition of 2(1)(n)(i) of WC Act, therefore, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh relying upon decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court cannot be accepted because provisions of WC Act itself are very much clear while reading section 2(1)(n)(i) of WC Act and section 10 and 19 of RPF Act. Section 2(1)(n) of WC Act read with section 10 and 19 of RPF Act makes it clear that the provisions of WC Act are applicable and applicant has been deemed to be railway servant covered under definition of workman given under WC Act, 1923. This aspect has been examined by Allahabad High Court in case of Abdul Latif Khan versus North Eastern Railway, 1977 ACJ 397. There, Division Bench of Allahabad High Court examined question whether Assistant Security Officer of RPF is a workman within the meaning of WC Act or not and answered that question in affirmative. Relevant discussion made in para 7 to 16 of said judgment is, therefore, reproduced as under: “7. The only question involved for consideration in the present appeal is whether the appellant was a workman within the meaning of section 2(n)of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 8. The fact that the appellant was a railway servant on the date on which the accident giving rise to the claim petition took place has already been accepted by the compensation Commissioner. In order to reach that conclusion the Compensation Commissioner has placed reliance on section 3(7) of the Indian Railways Act and section 10 of the Railway Protection Force Act. In order to reach that conclusion the Compensation Commissioner has placed reliance on section 3(7) of the Indian Railways Act and section 10 of the Railway Protection Force Act. Section 3(7) of the Indian Railways Act reads as follows: 'Railway Servant means any person employed by a railway administration in connection with the service of a railway.' Section 10 Railway Protection Force Act reads asunder: 'Director General and every other superior officer and every member of the Force shall for all purposes be regarded as railway servants within the meaning of the Indian Railways Act,1890, other than Chapter VI-A, exercise the powers conferred on railway servants by or under that Act.' It was not controverted before the Compensation Commissioner nor was it controverted before us, that the appellant was working as member of the Railway Protection Force (Armed Branch) on the North Eastern Railway in the Gorakhpur Range since 13th of July, 1965.In other words, the fact that he was a member of the railways Protection Force during the period the occurrence took place was not controverted at any stage. According to section 10 of the Railway Protection Force Act, every member of the Force, is for all purposes, other than Chapter VI-A of the Railways Act, to be regarded as railway servant. Needless to say that Chapter VI-A of the Railways Act is not relevant for our purpose in this case. The appellant would therefore be a railway servant in view of the provisions contained in section 10 of the Railway Protection Force Act. 9. Again, according to the statement on oath made by the appellant, he was a member of the Railway Protection Force on the date when the accident took place and in his capacity as such it was his duty to check and inspect the members of the force posted on duty at various placed within his range. It was further his duty to prevent the commission of crimes in the railways He was therefore a person employed by the railway administration in connection with the service of the railway of the railway. He would, therefore, also be servant in view of the provisions a railway contained in section 3(7) of the Indian Railways Act. The conclusion reached by the Compensation Commissioner that the appellant was a railway servant on the date on which the accident took place does not, therefore, call for any interference whatsoever. He would, therefore, also be servant in view of the provisions a railway contained in section 3(7) of the Indian Railways Act. The conclusion reached by the Compensation Commissioner that the appellant was a railway servant on the date on which the accident took place does not, therefore, call for any interference whatsoever. 10. This takes us to the point whether the appellant was a workman within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act when the accident took place. According to that provision, a person would be a workman, '(i) If he is railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Indian Railways Act and is not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or (ii) If he is a person employed on monthly wages not exceeding five hundred rupees, in such capacity as is specified in Schedule II.' 11. If a person falls within any of the aforesaid two clauses, he would be a workman within the meaning of section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 12. We have already accepted earlier the conclusion reached by the learned Compensation Commissioner that the appellant on the date of the accident was a railway servant as defined in section 3 of the Indian Railways Act. It was not the respondent's case at any stage that the appellant was permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub divisional office of a railway. Reference has at one stage been made by the learned Compensation Commissioner in his judgment to Item (xii) of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act which makes it appear that the Compensation Commissioner probably believed that the appellant did not fall within the first clause of section 2(n) because he was employed in one of the capacities specified in Schedule II item (xii) of Schedule II how ever reads as under: 'employed upon a railway as defined in clause (4)of section 3 and sub section (1) of section 148of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, either direct lyor through a sub contractor, by a person fulfilling a contract with the railway' administration' 13. There can be no doubt that if item (xii) of Schedule II applied to the appellant, he could not be a workman falling under the first clause of section 2(n). There can be no doubt that if item (xii) of Schedule II applied to the appellant, he could not be a workman falling under the first clause of section 2(n). A clause examination of Item(xii) of Schedule II, however, would not show that it will apply only to those persons who reemployed upon a railway by a person fulfilling a contract with the railway administration, directly or through a sub contractor. Now in the instant case there is no evidence to show that the appellant was employed upon the North Eastern Railway by any person fulfilling a contract with the Railway Administration, directly or through any sub contractor. Item (xii) of Schedule (II)could not, therefore apply to him. 14. It is further worthy of notice that in order that clause (I) of section 2(n) may not apply to a railway servant, two things are necessary: (i) that a person is not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub divisional office of a railway, and (ii) that the employment is not any of the capacity as defined in Schedule II. Therefore, even if we were to accept that Item(xii) of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act did not apply to the appellant, it was further necessary for the respondent to prove that the appellant was not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a railway. As already stated earlier, this has not been done. 15. Therefore, looked at from any angle, the disqualification referred to in the latter part of section 2(n) did not apply to the appellant and consequently he was a workman under the aforesaid clause. 16. Once it is accepted that the appellant was a workman falling under clause (I) of section 2(1) (n) of the Act, clause (ii) thereof becomes irrelevant. Further clause (ii) could apply only if the appellant was employed in any of the capacities specified in Schedule II. We have already held earlier that Item (xii) of Schedule-II referred to by the Compensation Commissioner, did not apply. We have not been referred to any other item occurring in Schedule II which would apply to the appellant. Consequently, the fact whether the appellant was drawing wages less or more than Rs.500.00 p.m. could have no bearing on the point as to whether the appellant was a workman on the date on which the accident took place. We have not been referred to any other item occurring in Schedule II which would apply to the appellant. Consequently, the fact whether the appellant was drawing wages less or more than Rs.500.00 p.m. could have no bearing on the point as to whether the appellant was a workman on the date on which the accident took place. The Compensation Commissioner has erred in relying on clause (ii) of section 2(1)(n) in order to hold that the appellant was not aworkman.” 21. In view of aforesaid decision given by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, which squarely examined matter at issue raised before this court and elaborate discussion made by Allahabad High Court as considered by this Court, and also considering section 10 of RPF Act and also in light of reasoning given by WC Commissioner, finding given by WC Commissioner cannot be considered to be erroneous. Question of fact is also examined whether, at the relevant time, option was given to concerned employee or not. For that, there is no positive evidence produced on record by railway authority before WC Commissioner. Accident had taken place during course of employment at the time when applicant was on duty while protecting railway property in railway premises, therefore, finding which has been given by WC Commissioner cannot be considered to be contrary to law or evidence on record. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Singh before this Court cannot be accepted and same are, therefore, rejected. In decision of Andhra Pradesh which has been relied upon by appellant, this question has not been specifically examined giving reasons in support of such conclusion. As against that, Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has in detail examined question and specific reasons are given in support of such conclusion and, therefore, according to my opinion, WC Commissioner has not committed any error either in law or on facts which would require interference of this Court. Therefore, there is no error committed by WC Commissioner which would require interference of this Court. Therefore, this appeal is required to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 22. Today, this court has dismissed first appeal. Therefore, there is no error committed by WC Commissioner which would require interference of this Court. Therefore, this appeal is required to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 22. Today, this court has dismissed first appeal. Therefore, it is directed to WC Commissioner,Godhra to pay Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) to respondent herein Ninama Sadiyabhai Titabhai by way of an account payee cheque from the amount deposited by appellant on 7th February, 2007 and thereafter, amount is ordered to be invested with accruingremainingg interest in any nationalized bank for a period of three years in name of said respondent but FDRs to remain in custody of WC Commissioner, Godhra for a period of three years. It is further directed to WC Commissioner, Godhra to incorporate condition with nationalized bank while investing amount that respondent Ninama Sadiyabhai Titabhai must receive monthly interest from such FDRs for a period of three years. After period of three years, it is open for respondent claimant to withdraw entire amount. WC Commissioner, Godhra is directed not to issue cheque in favour of any power of attorney holder or any proxy on behalf of respondent claimant but to issue cheque only in the name of said respondent Ninama Sadiyabhai Titabhai and he must have to take care that cheque is issued only in favour of said respondent and no other person can receive it. Similarly interest is to be paid to respondent claimant or is directed to be deposited in bank account of respondent and care has to be taken that any other person does not get benefit from such compensation except respondent claimant.