| APPELLANT | Commanding Officer Railway Protection Special Force, Mumbai |
| RESPONDENT | Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor & Ors |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| BENCH | Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra |
| CASE NO. | Civil Appeal No(s). 3592 of 2019 |
| STATUTE REFERENCE | 1. Constitution of India, 1950 2. Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 3. The Railways Act, 1989 4. Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 |
| DECIDED ON | 26th September, 2023 |
| RESULT | RPF personnels are considered as “workmen” as per Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and therefore, entitled to claim compensation under the said Act. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
This significant case law justifies the entitlement of claiming compensation by the officers of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) under Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
On dated 23/04/ 2008, Mr. Karsanbhai Dineshbhai Brabhor, a constable at the Railway Protection Special Force (RSPF), Mumbai which is a sub division of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), Mumbai; lost his life in an accident during his working hours. His widow, being an immediate legal heir, claimed compensation under The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 on the basis that he was a “workman” as per the said Act of 1923. But the widow was not given compensation by the Commanding Officer of the Railway Protection Special Force, Mumbai as the deceased constable was associated with “an armed Force of the Union” as per Section 3 of the The Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and therefore, not comes under the purview of “workman” under The Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
This instant matter was then filed before the “Commissioner For Workmen’s Compensation” by the legal heirs of the constable, where it was decided that the said legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation as the deceased constable was a “Railway Servant” under Section 2(34) of the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore suffices, the definition of “workman” under Section 2(1)(n)(i) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and therefore, entitled to claim compensation.
The said decision was then challenged before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad which upheld Commissioner’s decision. The Commanding Officer of the RSPF, being dissatisfied with High Court’s decision, filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
ISSUES RAISED
The present matter revolves around these following issues:
1. Whether a constable be considered as a “workman” under Section 2(1) (n) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923?
2. Whether the claim of compensation under the 1923 Act maintainable despite having alternative remedies under Section 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?
CONTENTIONS:
From the side of the appellant:
1. It was submitted that any member of RPF is a part of the “armed Force of the Union” u/s 3 of the The Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and not a “workman” u/s 2(1)(n) of the Employees Compensation Act , 1923.
2. It was also submitted that the said constable is not an employee as described in Entries (i),(xii), and (xiii) under Schedule-II of the Employees Compensation Act , 1923. There he cannot be considered as a “workman” under 1923 Act.
3. It was also said that through the procedure of compassionate appointment, a job was offered to one of the close relative of the deceased, making the said claim for compensation unacceptable under the 1923 Act. Moreover under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, the respondents had alternative remedy available.
4. Also, many previous decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were cited: i. Union of India v. Sri Harananda (2019) 14 SCC 126: In this case the court, after relying to the Sections 3 and 8 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, decided that the RPF is a part of the “armed Force of the Union.”
ii. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 49: An observation is made that the words of a statute is open to only one meaning when its words are clear, plain and unambiguous; and the courts, irrespective of any outcome, is bound to give effect to that meaning only.
iii. Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527: In this case, an observation is made that if any words of a welfare statute, capable of having two construction, the one which has more conformity to the objective of the act should be preferred.
From the side of the Respondent (the widow and other legal heirs herein):
1. It was argued that Section 2(1) (n) of The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 undoubtedly reflects that “workman” also includes “railway servants.” Also, in 01/07/2004, the Railways Act, 1989 was amended to include RPF as “railway servants”. Therefore, the deceased constable should be considered as a “railway servant”, making him eligible to claim compensation under the said Act of 1923.
2. The term “armed forces of the Union” remains undefined in The Employees Compensation Act, 1923. For that reason, it needs to be interpreted based on the context in which it was added to the law. Moreover, the said Act of 1923 is a pre independence statute and before independence, the term “His Majesty’s naval, military or air forces” was present instead of the present term “armed forces of the Union”. After 1950, to reflect the status as a new sovereign nation, India changed the colonial term to its present term in the 1923 Act. Therefore, interpretation of the present term would have to be restricted in the context in which it was added in the law.
3. Also the main intention of the lawmakers in stating RPF members as the “armed forces of the Union” was not to exclude them from the 1923 Act; like Section 19 of The Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 which in substantive terms, excluded RPF’s from taking any benefit from Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or the Factories Act, 1948. This implies that the members of RPF are not excluded from claiming compensation under 1923 Act.
4. It was also submitted that as per Section 2(34) of The Railways Act, 1989 r.w.t. Section 10 of The Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, “railway servant” also includes the members of RPF. This implies that the members of RPF are “workman” as per Section 2(1) (n) of The Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and therefore, should not be concerned of the Entries (i),(xii), and (xiii) under Schedule-II of the Employees Compensation Act , 1923.
5. The respondents also taken help of Section 128 of The Railways Act, 1989 which states, “The right of any person to claim compensation under section 124[or section 124A] shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law for the time being in force; but no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident.”
RATIONALE
1. The court affirmed to the fact that under Section 2(1)(n) sub-clause (i),(ia) and (ii) of The Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the definition of workmen does not include the members of the “armed Force of the Union.” But it is pertinent to mention that both the 1923 Act and the General Clauses Act, 1897 are silent in defining the actual meaning of the term, “The Armed forces of the Union” which replaced the colonial
term “His Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.” after 26th January, 2023. Therefore, the court, to explore the purpose of the abovementioned amendment made through the Adaptation Order of 1950 w.r.t. Article 372(2) of the Indian Constitution, interpreted the precedent of Ramesh Birch and Others v. Union of India and Others 1989 Supp (1) SCC 430 and understood that the colonial terms contained in the 1923 statute was antithetical to the Constitution of India, 1950, making it necessary to substitute those phrases with words signifying the present status of sovereign India.
2. Therefore the court decided that mere declaration regarding the status of RPF personnel as “an armed Force of the Union” is insufficient to remove it from the jurisdiction of The Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
3. The court also tried to understand the main intention of the legislature, specifically whether they aimed in depriving the members of RPF and their legal heirs of the benefits they would otherwise receive as “railway servants” u/s 2(34) of The Railways Act, 1989.
4. Moreover on dated 01/07/2004, the Railways Act, 1989 was amended to include the members of RPF as “railway servants”, and as no such entries under Schedule II of The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 specifically mention RPFs as workmen; eventually implying that the members of RPF are “workman” as per Section 2(1) (n) of the said Act, 1923.
5. The court also stated that Section 19 of The Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 has not excluded the members of RPF in taking benefit from the welfare statute that is, The Employees Compensation Act, 1923; therefore making the deceased constable’s legal heir’s entitled in claim compensation under this legislation.
6. Also, Section 128 of the Railways Act, 1989 states, “The right of any person to claim compensation under section 124[or section 124A] shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law for the time being in force; but no person shall
be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident.” As no other compensations were claimed till date from any other executive authorities by the family members of the deceased constable, therefore making them eligible for their entitlement.
DEFECTS OF LAW
1. Lack of clarity regarding the exclusion of the Armed Forces: The judgement lacks detailed reasoning or criteria for determining when to exclude “an armed Force of the Union” from welfare legislations such as The Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Principles and tests applied in this case for the entitlement of compensation may need further clarification in future cases where members of other armed forces will be involved.
2. Jurisdictional Overlap: The jurisdictional overlap in context of remedies provided under different statutes such as the 1923 Act and the Railways Act, 1989, could create confusion in future cases. It would have been beneficial if the legislature navigates such overlaps and mitigate them through necessary amendments in the law.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court’s decision in this instant matter has tried extended the scope of welfare legislations such as the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to not only include the employees who are working in the Administrative areas of the Railways but also include those persons who are there to protect the premises of the Railways from any external threats and disturbances by maintaining law and order i.e., the members of Railway Police Forces(RPF).
This case in near future, might act as a precedent for those members of the RPF who lost their lives or got severely injured during their course of employment, if they or their legal heirs have been deprived of their monetary compensation which act as a necessity for their survival.
The importance of the judiciary has also been amplified in this judgement where the court tried to interpret the main intent of the lawmakers who enact laws as per the need and benefit
of the society, their thoughts; and understanding the pre-independence scenario in context of colonial legislations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. B.V. Nagarthna, Commanding Officer Railway Protection … vs Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor. On 26 September, 2023, INDIAN KANOON (Aug 28, 2024, 16:05 PM), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101908770/
2. Ridhi, RPF Constable a railway servant; entitled to claim under Employees Compensation Act, 1923: Supreme Court, SCC ONLINE TIMES (Aug 28, 2024, 16:10 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/09/30/rpf-constable-a-railway servant-entitled-claim-employees-compensation-act-1923-supreme-court/
3. LIVE LAW.IN, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/835-railway-protection-special force-v-bhavnaben-dinshbhai-bhabhor-26-sep-2023-503286.pdf (last visited Aug 28, 2024)
Name of the Author: Kaustav Bhattacharyya; 3rd Year, BBA LL.B(H.) at Department of Law, University of Engineering and Management, Kolkata (IIIJS); E-mail Id: kaustavrcm@gmail.com; Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/kaustav-bhattacharyya-a07128251