JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 from the judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in TS (EC) No.17 of 2013. 3. The claim for compensation under Section 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 was filed for death of the husband of the claimant-appellant namely, Jaharthoi Halam who according to the appellant died in the course of or out of the employment. The essential fact that needs to be vitiated is that Jaharthoi Halam, husband of the appellant was a labourer working under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (in short, MGNREGA). On 17.12.2011 he was engaged by the respondent No.4 for working on the land of Dukhaia Siem. On 23.12.2011 at about 8 a.m. the deceased started working but suddenly he felt pain in his chest and immediately thereafter he collapsed and fell on the ground. By the other labourers who were working in the field of Dukhaia Siem took him to the Kulai hospital where he was declared dead. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 32 years and according to the claimant-appellant, he used to earn Rs.300/- per day. 4. It is not disputed that under the provisions of Schedule-I, Clause 28 (see Section 5) of the said Act, the claimant-appellant was paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the deceased was indisputably working under the MGNREGA. Several issues were framed by the Commissioner of Employees Compensation. Out of which, the following issue is relevant for purpose of determining this appeal. “Is the claimant entitled to be compensated under the provision of the Employees” Compensation Act? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same?” 5. In this regard, the Commissioner of Employee’s Compensation has observed that the definition of ‘employee’ as provided under Section 2(dd) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 provides a comprehensive list of categories of employees to be covered by the said definition. If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same?” 5. In this regard, the Commissioner of Employee’s Compensation has observed that the definition of ‘employee’ as provided under Section 2(dd) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 provides a comprehensive list of categories of employees to be covered by the said definition. The Commissioner has observed as follows: “I do not find that a person who was engaged as labourer under the MGNREGA Scheme to work in the land of a private person can in any way be brought within the definition. When the deceased does not come within the purview of the definition of “employee” under the Employees Compensation Act, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that compensation can be granted for his death under the provision of that Act. I have also gone through the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and the Madras High Court where it was not in dispute that the case fell within the purview of the Employees Compensation Act. What was in dispute was whether the person died while doing a work arising out of his employment. The citations are thus clearly distinguished from the one in hand. For the reasons stated above in my considered opinion, the suit is not maintainable. The issue is thus decided in the negative.” 6. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that Section 2(dd) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 cannot be read isolatedly in view of the amendment carried out for payments of compensation for injuries in Part-I and Part-II. According to him, the following categories of employees are entitled to be defined as the ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 2(dd) by virtue of this amendment. According to Mr. Deb, learned counsel that since the deceased was employed under the MGNREGA and he was employed, except the clerical capacity, in a construction, boring, deepening of an open well or other categories relating working in the field, the deceased can be treated as the ‘employee’ within the meaning of the Section 2(dd) of the said Act. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has also referred the provision which is as follows: “ia. Employed in cleaning of jungles or reclaiming land or ponds on which on any one day of the proceeding 12 months more than the 25 persons have been employed.” 7. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has also referred the provision which is as follows: “ia. Employed in cleaning of jungles or reclaiming land or ponds on which on any one day of the proceeding 12 months more than the 25 persons have been employed.” 7. However, later on he has submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant to show that 25 persons were working under any project funded from the MGNREGA and also that the deceased employee was employed in clearing the jungles or reclaiming the land and found in which on any day of the said stipulated 12 months. Finally, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that since the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a social welfare legislation, the interpretation that sub-serves the object of the Act shall be accepted by the court. In this regard, a decision of this court in Smt. Kanchana Chakma and Ors. vs. State of Tripura (Judgment and order dated 09.10.2015 delivered in MFA(WC) No.06 of 2011) where the court had occasion to observe that production of the record for ascertaining the employment character of the deceased or whether he was employed or not, shall not always be shifted on the employee but the State being a benevolent employer shall have the responsibility to produce the record for purpose of fairness. According to this court, the said decision does not have any relevance in the present context as we are concerned with whether there is evidentiary material on record to show that the deceased employee can be termed as the ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. 8. From the other side, Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA has contended that from reading of the categories as incorporated under Schedule I and II by way of the said amendment, the deceased cannot be defined as the ‘employee’ and as such the appeal is without substance and merits no further consideration. 9. Having appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that there is no material to show that the deceased employee can be defined as the ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 having read with the amendments carried out by the State of Tripura. 9. Having appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that there is no material to show that the deceased employee can be defined as the ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 having read with the amendments carried out by the State of Tripura. Further, this court does not find any infirmity in the finding as returned by the Commissioner of Employees, Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in this regard and as corollary thereof, this appeal stands dismissed. However, in the context of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.