Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 545 (GAU)

State of Mizoram v. Lalngaihsangi Ralte

2021-09-09

NELSON SAILO

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government advocate for the appellants and Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondent 2. This is an appeal under section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (‘the EC Act’) filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner under the EC Act in WC Case No. 12/2016 whereby, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 7,50,480 to the respondent as compensation for the death of her husband in a vehicular accident along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the accident. Aggrieved with the judgment and award, the State appellant is before this court through the instant appeal. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that the husband of the respondent, who was employed with the Power & Electricity Department (P&E Department), Government of Mizoram as Junior Engineer on 2.3.2015 left Lunglei for Aizawl on Office duty. He first went to Hnahthial for repairing some machines and in the evening he and SDO, Hnahthial left for Aizawl to collect materials for Meter Reading and Transmission (MRT) Sub-Division Office. Thereafter, on 4.3.2015, he was on his way back to Lunglei from Aizawl travelling in his Mahindra Jeep B/R No. MZ 02 A-6446 but he did not arrived at Lunglei as was expected. A report was made to the Kulikawn Police Station, Aizawl on 5.3.2015 by his relatives’ and after a search was conducted by the Police, it was discovered that he met with an accident at Thingkhuang ram, Sialsuk. The vehicle was badly damaged and the deceased was found dead inside the Jeep. As a result, the respondent filed the claim application before the Commissioner under the EC Act claiming compensation for the death of her husband. The appellants contested the claim as opposite party by filing their written statement. The Commissioner framed as many as 4 issues. In support of their claim, the respondent examined 3 witnesses while the appellants examined only one witness. Consequently, the Commissioner, vide his judgment and award dated 17.10.2017 awarded compensation to the respondent as already mentioned herein above. 4. This court while admitting the appeal on 16.5.2018 formulated one substantial question of law, which is as follows. “Whether the Junior Engineer employee under the Govt. Consequently, the Commissioner, vide his judgment and award dated 17.10.2017 awarded compensation to the respondent as already mentioned herein above. 4. This court while admitting the appeal on 16.5.2018 formulated one substantial question of law, which is as follows. “Whether the Junior Engineer employee under the Govt. of Mizoram can be said to be an employee under Schedule-2 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923?” 5. Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government advocate by referring to section 2(1)(dd) of the EC Act submits that the definition of ‘employee? under the said provision does not include a Junior Engineer employed under the State Government. Likewise, Schedule-II of the EC Act also does not include a Junior Engineer to be an employee within the meaning of section 2(1)(dd) of the EC Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award cannot be sustained. She further submits that an objection to this effect was also raised by the appellants in their written statement before the Commissioner but the same was ignored. Therefore, in view of the clear definition of an employee under the EC Act, the judgment and award of the Commissioner should be set aside. 6. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the deceased on 2.3.2015 left Lunglei for Aizawl on duty. On 4.3.2015, after collecting the indent materials from the Office of the P&E Department at Zuangtui, he left for Lunglei. Unfortunately, he met with an accident at Thingkhuang ram, Sialsuk and succumbed to his injuries. Referring to section 3 of the EC Act, the learned counsel submits that if personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer will be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the EC Act. Since the deceased was employed under the P&E Department and having met with an accident while on duty, the State Government in the Department concerned is liable to compensate the respondent for her husband's death. The learned counsel also submits that this court has held that even a Muster Roll employee employed under the State Government is entitled to compensation under the EC Act either for death or for injuries sustained in the course of employment. The learned counsel also submits that this court has held that even a Muster Roll employee employed under the State Government is entitled to compensation under the EC Act either for death or for injuries sustained in the course of employment. In this connection, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:— (1) Judgment and order dated 2.8.2019 in MFA No. 1/2019 (The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Tourism Department v. Smt. Sita Karki). (2) Judgment and order dated 10.2.2021 in RFA No. 7/2018 (The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram v. Sh. Lalsangliana). 7. The learned counsel further submits that the EC Act being a beneficial legislation, liberal interpretation of the definition of employee has to be given. Referring of the case of The Works Manager, Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath, (1969) 3 SCC 95 , the learned counsel submits that under the Factories Act, the definition of ‘worker’ was given an interpretation by the Apex Court to include even the time-keepers employed by the Railways, who were said to perform purely clerical duties and not connected in any manner with the manufacturing process. Therefore, in view of the liberal construction of the word ‘employee’ in view of the beneficial legislation even in the present case, the Commissioner rightly awarded compensation to the respondent. To support his submission, the learned counsel further relies upon the case of Govind Goenka v. Dayawati, 2012 (4) TAC 107 (Delhi) and the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup, (2008) 11 SCC 10 . 8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the LCR requisitioned from the Commissioner. 9. Facts not in disputed is that the husband of the respondent Sh. T. Lalthanzama, working as Junior Engineer in MRT Sub-Division of the P&E Department at Lunglei, met with a motor vehicular accident on his way back from Aizawl on 4.3.2015 and he did not reach Lunglei as was expected by his family, a report was made to the Police on 5.3.2015. He was found to have met with an accident at Thingkhuang ram, Sialsuk and that he died due to the said accident. He was found to have met with an accident at Thingkhuang ram, Sialsuk and that he died due to the said accident. The evidence of Claimant's Witness No. 1 (CW-1) Smt. Lalngaihsangi who is the respondent in the present appeal and wife of the deceased is to the effect that on 2.3.2015, her husband left Lunglei for Office duty and he first went to Hnahthial for repairing some machines and on the same evening he and the SDO : Hnahthial left for Aizawl to collect materials’ for Meter Reading and Transmission (MRT) Sub-Division Office. On 4.3.2015, he left Aizawl after attending Office works at New Capital Complex and proceeded towards Lunglei in his Mahindra Jeep. However; as he did not arrive at Lunglei as was expected, his relatives as well as Kulikawh Police Station, Aizawl were informed on 5.3.2015. On 6.3.2018, the Police found his badly damaged jeep at Thingkhuang ram, Sialsuk and her husband lying dead inside the vehicle. In support of her claim for compensation, CW-1 exhibited the claim application, birth and death certificate of her late husband, his last pay certificate, his driving licence, the inquest report, the final report under section 174, CrPC, Post Mortem Examination Report, Marriage Certificate, her birth certificate, the birth certificate of their son and daughter as Exhibits C-1 to C-14, respectively. In her cross-examination she stated that it was not a fact that the deceased Mr. T. Lalthanzama was not her true husband and that it was not a fact that she was deposing falsely before the court. 10. The evidence of Claimant's Witness No. 2 (CW-2) S.I R. Chhawnkima is to the effect that upon receiving a W/T message from O.C., Kulikawn Police Station, while being posted at Sialsuk Police Station, he along with his colleagues left Sialsuk Police Station and proceeded towards Thenzawl searching for the missing person. In doing so, they found the deceased to have met with an accident about 5 kms from Sialsuk village. His vehicle was badly damaged and he was found dead inside his vehicle. The dead boay of the deceased was then sent for post mortem examination and as per the report, the cause of death was attributed to the multiple injury suffered by by him including the puncturing of left lungs and dislocation in the cervical bone between C3 and C4, fractured injury in the left tibia and fibula. The dead boay of the deceased was then sent for post mortem examination and as per the report, the cause of death was attributed to the multiple injury suffered by by him including the puncturing of left lungs and dislocation in the cervical bone between C3 and C4, fractured injury in the left tibia and fibula. To conclude his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit, CW-2 exhibited his signature in the Final Report (C-7) as Exibit C-7(a). As for his cross-examination, the same was denied by the opposite parties. 11. The evidence of Claimant's Witness No. 3 (CW-3) Sh. F.B. Thariga is to the effect that he was working as LDC-cum — Cashier in the Office of MRT Division, P&E Department at Zuangtiii, Aizawl since 1986. He knew the deceased person and that he used to collect indent for the Office of MRT Sub-Division at Lunglei every month. On 4.3.2015, the deceased came to their Office at Zuangtui and collected the indent materials. While doing so, he told him that he was returning to Lunglei on the same day. Although he advised him to return the next day as he did not have any companion, he came to know that the deceased proceeded to return to Lunglei on the same day when he collected the office indent materials. On 6.3.2015, he heard that the deceased did not return home safely and they received telephonic information from his wife that he did not reach home yet. The office staffs then gathered in the residence of Mr. Thanglawra at Sikulpuikawn where they got the information that the deceased was found dead at Thingkhuang ram which was 5 kilometers from Sialsuk. CW-3 also deposed that the deceased died on 4.3.2015 during the course of employment. In his cross-examination, CW-3 stated that as on 4.3.2015, the deceased was serving as Junior Engineer in the Department of P&E. He was a regular employee and working in the Sub-Division Office, MRT, Lunglei as SDO in-charge. That he had no idea as to whether the deceased was entitled to compensation under the EC Act. 12. Ms. R.L. Muanpuii working as the Engineering Officer to the Engineer-in-chief was examined as the lone witness of the opposite parties. That he had no idea as to whether the deceased was entitled to compensation under the EC Act. 12. Ms. R.L. Muanpuii working as the Engineering Officer to the Engineer-in-chief was examined as the lone witness of the opposite parties. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that by virtue of her post, she was well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and that written objection to the claim was filed on the grounds mentioned therein. She exhibited the same with the signature of the Engineer-in-chief appended to it as Exhibit-D-1 and D-1(a), respectively. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the deceased was working as Junior Engineer in the P&E Department during his lifetime. He collected indent from the Office of the Executive Engineer, MRT Division, Zuangtui on 4.3.2015 and returned to Lunglei on the same day. 13. The evidence of all the 3 CWs is to the effect that the deceased person on 2.3.2015, travelled from Lunglei to Aizawl via Hnahthial on official duty. He stopped by at Hnahthial to repair some machine and then proceeded to Aizawl on the same day. On 04.3.2015, after he collected indent materials from the Office of the MRT Division, P&E Department at Zuangtui, he proceeded back to Lunglei. However, he did not reach Lunglei as was expected and, therefore, Kulikawn Police Station was informed the next day, i.e., 5.3.2015. Police then conducted search and they found his badly damaged vehicle at Thingkhuang ram, Sialsuk with him lying dead inside the vehicle. This piece of evidence has neither been shaken nor falsified by the appellants-opposite party during the cross-examination of the claimant's witness. The evidence of the lone O.P witness is also to the effect that the deceased person collected the indent materials from the MRT Division, Zuangtui on 4.3.2015 and proceeded back to Lunglei on the same day. He was an employee under P&E Department and was posted in the MRT Sub-Division at Lunglei. 14. As already stated herein above, the only substantial question of law formulated is whether the deceased person who was working as Junior Engineer under the P&E Department, Govt. of Mizoram can be said to be an employee under the Schedule-II of the EC Act. Under the EC Act, the term ‘employee’ is defined in section 2(1)(dd). 14. As already stated herein above, the only substantial question of law formulated is whether the deceased person who was working as Junior Engineer under the P&E Department, Govt. of Mizoram can be said to be an employee under the Schedule-II of the EC Act. Under the EC Act, the term ‘employee’ is defined in section 2(1)(dd). The nature Of duties and functions of an employee is also provided in Schedule-II of the same Act Section 2(1)(dd)(iii) amongst others, provides that an employee means a person who is employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule-II, whether the contract of an employment was made before or after the passing of the EC Act and whether, such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing. Section 3 of the EC Act provides that if personal injury is caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-11 of the EC Act. In the present case, the evidence on record goes to show that the deceased was employed as a Junior Engineer under the P&E Department, Govt. of Mizoram and posted in the MRT Sub-Division, Lunglei. On 2.3.2015, on his way to Aizawl from Lunglei, he went to Hnahthial for repairing some machineries and on 4.3.2015, he attended Office works at New Capital Complex and also went to Office of the Executive Engineer, MRT Division at Zuangtui, Aizawl to collect indent and thereafter, proceeded towards Lunglei. Therefore, from the evidence of the 3 witnesses of the claimants and the sole witness of the opposite party, the post held by the deceased, the nature of work performed by him and the fact that he was on duty before he met with an accident has been established. Schedule-II of the EC Act provides for the list of persons who, subject to the provisions of section 2(1)(dd) are included in the definition of employees. As per serial No.(ix) of Schedule-II, employees included those employed in setting up, maintaining, repairing or taking down any telegraph or telephone line or post or any overhead electric line or cable or post or standard or fittings and fixtures for the same. As per serial No.(ix) of Schedule-II, employees included those employed in setting up, maintaining, repairing or taking down any telegraph or telephone line or post or any overhead electric line or cable or post or standard or fittings and fixtures for the same. Further, as per serial No.(xix) of the same Schedule, employees include those employed in the generating, transforming, transmitting or distribution of electrical energy or in generation or supply of gas. Likewise, serial No (xxxi) employees include those employed in the maintenance, repair or renewal of electric fittings in any building. The deceased though an officer of the P&E Department was working under the Govt. of Mizoram. He cannot be the employer but an employee under the State Government. Therefore, having regard to the post held by the deceased, the place of h& posting and the nature of work undertaken by him, he has to be accepted to be an employee within the meaning of the term ‘employee’ under the EC Act Moreover, the EC Act being a beneficial legislation as held and reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Govind Goenka (supra), the intent and purpose of the Act in my considered view cannot be defeated by hyper-technical interpretation of the term ‘employee’. The Apex Court in Vishwanath (supra) in the given facts of that case held that the respondents, who were working as timekeepers and entrusted with purely clerical duties could not be excluded within the definition of the term ‘worker’ under the Factories Act. 15. Again, the Apex Court in Dr. Jamuna Kurup (supra), while dealing with the term ‘employee’ as defined under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 held that the ordinary meaning of an employee is any person employed on salary or wage by an employer. When there is a contract of employment, the person employed is the employee and the person employing is the employer. In absence of any restrictive definition, the word ‘employee’ would include both permanent and temporary, regular or short-term, contractual or ad hoc. Therefore, all persons employed by the Municipality whether permanent or contractual will be employees of the Municipality. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased person was a permanent employee of the P&E Department in the present case and, therefore, his inclusion as a person entitled to claim compensation under the Act cannot be given a restrictive interpretation. Therefore, all persons employed by the Municipality whether permanent or contractual will be employees of the Municipality. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased person was a permanent employee of the P&E Department in the present case and, therefore, his inclusion as a person entitled to claim compensation under the Act cannot be given a restrictive interpretation. Moreover, the deceased having expired in the course of his employment, his dependents will be entitled to compensation under the EC Act. Thus, upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, the substantial question of law formulated will have to be answered in the affirmative. In view of the finding arrived at, the decision rendered by this court in the Sh. Lalsangliana (supra) and the Smt. Sita Karki (supra) are not required to be referred to. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 16. While dismissing the appeal, this court has noticed that the appellants on 8.2.2018 had deposited Rs. 7,50,000 before the Commissioner without the interest awarded by the Commissioner. The appellants are, therefore, directed to deposit the interest awarded before the Commissioner within 6 weeks from today. Also, the interest that may have accrued on the amount already deposited before the Commissioner be released to the respondent. 17. With the above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. Office to send back the LCR.