In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court overturned a decision by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, affirming that a casual worker engaged in repair and painting work qualifies as an “employee” under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit presided over the case, First Appeal From Order No. 1596 of 2022.
The case arose from a claim by Seema Devi, widow of Mahendra Singh, who died from injuries sustained after falling from the third floor of a building while performing painting work on March 31, 2015. Singh succumbed to his injuries on April 20, 2015. The court held that the Commissioner’s dismissal of the claim on the grounds that Singh was a casual worker was erroneous and legally unsustainable.
Case Background
Seema Devi filed a compensation claim of ₹7,68,560 along with 12% interest, asserting that her husband’s death occurred during the course of employment under a contractor (Respondent No. 2), engaged by the building owner (Respondent No. 1). Respondent No. 2 admitted that Singh was hired for the painting work but claimed he was engaged on a casual basis, denying any formal employer-employee relationship.
The Employees Compensation Commissioner dismissed the petition, holding that Singh’s employment was casual and did not constitute an employer-employee relationship as per the Act.
High Court’s Observations
Justice Dixit relied on the definition of “employee” in Section 2(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, and the specific mention in Schedule II, which includes individuals engaged in repair or maintenance work on multi-storied buildings. The court noted:
“From the bare perusal of the definition of employee, it is very much clear that any person engaged in construction, maintenance, repairing, or demolition of any building, which is more than one story in height above the ground, is treated as an employee.”
The court referred to the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in Nadirsha Hormusji Sidhwa vs. Krishnabai Bala (1936), which held that painting is integral to building repairs and maintenance.
The court also highlighted the Commissioner’s acknowledgment that Singh was engaged in repair and painting work when the fatal incident occurred. Despite this, the claim was dismissed on a flawed interpretation of the employment relationship.
Decision and Directions
The High Court found the Commissioner’s dismissal of the claim to be “perverse and against the law,” noting that the deceased fell squarely within the Act’s definition of an employee. Setting aside the Commissioner’s order dated May 18, 2022, the court remanded the case back for reconsideration.
The court directed the Commissioner to decide the claim afresh, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to present their cases within six months of receiving the certified order.
Parties Involved
– Appellant: Seema Devi, represented by Advocate Shekhar Srivastava
– Respondents: Vimal Jain (building owner) and another, represented by Advocates Ravindra Prakash Srivastava and Yogesh Kumar Mishra
