Workmen's Compensation Act: Proving Relationship Of Employee-Employer Is Essential: SC In Case Of Accidental Death

A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal while dismissing the Appeal held that “the relationship of employer and employee has not been proved before the Commissioner. In our opinion, the same being the basic requirement to be fulfilled for claiming compensation under the 1923 Act, the appellants may not be entitled to receive any compensation”.

Further, the Bench observed that “delay of 9 years in filing application under the 1923 Act, is certainly fatal for consideration of the claim by the appellants for award of compensation. No sufficient cause is established for condonation of delay in filing the application.”

AOR Shivaji M. Jadhav appeared for the Appellant while AOR Yash Pal Dhingra appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

The appeal challenged the April 9, 2010 order of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the findings of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Sangli by order dated July 04, 2008.

The appeal before the Supreme Court was preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased died in a road accident on August 17, 1993. The jeep was owned by the Respondent. A claim of ₹1,13,855/- along with interest and penalty was filed with the Labor Commissioner on August 02, 2004.

According to the findings of the Commissioner, the application was rejected on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The claim petition was also held to be not maintainable in view of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The order by the Labor Commission was challenged in the Bombay High Court. The High Court upheld the order touching the issue of delay and not dealing anything on merits. The High Court found that the delay being enormous, the Commissioner had rightly declined to condonation of delay. However, the claim petition was held to be maintainable.

The primary issues before the Supreme Court were whether there was a reasonable reason for a delay in filing the claim, and whether there existed a nature of employee-employer relationship in the case.

On the issue of the nature of the relationship, the Court held that “There is nothing to suggest that the so-called employer had admitted the relationship of master and servant. Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to refer the evidence produced on record to show that there existed the master and servant relationship between the deceased and the respondent no.1.”

For the delay of filing claim, the Bench stated “on the ground of delay in filing the application before the Commissioner i.e., 02.08.2004 also, the same deserves to be dismissed. delay of 9 years in filing application under the 1923 Act, is certainly fatal for consideration of the claim by the appellants for award of compensation. Therefore, in our opinion, no sufficient cause is established for condonation of delay in filing the application.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Shantabai Ananda Jagtap & Anr v. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap & Anr.