The Supreme Court in one its recent rulings has held that a worker died due to occupational hazard can't be denied compensation on the ground of differential designation when the functions ought to be performed are nearly similar.
The Bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian has held that denying the insurance coverage under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 on the ground that deceased was engaged as 'helper' and not 'cleaner' is wholly unjustified. The resides the absence of any clear demarcation of duties and the the terms are interchangeably used, the Court noted.
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellant-Employer has assailed the Rajasthan High Court order whereby the appeal of the Respondent-Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 19231 was allowed.
Deceased was engaged by the appellant as a Helper who died in the course of employment of the appellant on his borewell due to collapse of soil surrounding the well. The petition was filed before the Employees Commissioner under the Act for grant of compensation and award of ₹3,27,555/- along with ₹2,500/- as expenses for the last rites was accordingly granted. The legal heirs of deceased were also granted interest @18% p.a. from the date of accident.
Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Act before the High Court and it accepted the same holding that the deceased was a Helper though the policy covered Cleaner or Driver of the Vehicle in question. The High Court reduced the interest to 12% p.a. Since the insurance company has paid the amount, liberty was granted to it to recover the sum from the present appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is not much difference between the duties of a Cleaner and a Helper. It is a nomenclature which is used interchangeably by all the employers. Still further, reliance is placed upon insurance policy which indemnifies the owner in respect of two drivers, one cleaner and other employees for which extra premium has been paid by the owner.
He also refers to India Motor Tariff 173 issued under the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938. As per such endorsement, the insurance company has agreed to indemnify any claim of personal injury to any paid driver or cleaner or persons employed in loading or unloading but in any case, not exceeding seven in number including driver and cleaner while engaged in service of the insured
Supreme Court Observation
The Court on the outset observed that that the High Court has accepted appeal on a make-believe argument that Cleaner or Helper engaged by the employer are engaged in two different duties and that a Helper is not covered by the insurance policy.
It further added:
"In the absence of any clear demarcation of duties of a Helper or a Cleaner and in view of the fact that Helper and Cleaner are interchangeably used, therefore, declining claim for the reason that deceased was engaged as a helper and not Cleaner is wholly unjustified."
Remarking that that the High Court has drawn a distinction between Helper and a Cleaner when none existed,the Court noted:
"Additionally, the employer sought indemnification of five other employees engaged in loading or unloading activities by paying extra premium. It was for the insurance company to cross examine the witnesses produced by the claimant or by the owner to prove the fact that deceased was not engaged in loading or unloading activities."
In view of the above, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned HC order.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments