Person with causal nature employment would get benefits under Employee’s Compensation Act

Marlo or Fab Gold Vs Arvind (Delhi High Court)

Conclusion: Delhi HC upheld the compensation awarded under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 by the Ld. Commissioner and have upheld that a person whose employment is of a casual nature and is employed other than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business comes within the meaning of ’employee’ as defined in Section 2(1)(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act.

Facts: In present facts, the appeal was filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 wherein, the appellant has assailed the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, whereby claim petition of the respondent/claimant was allowed and appellant/its proprietor(s) was directed to pay Rs.3,17,717/- alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a. calculated w.e.f. 01.03.2018.

The Claimant/ Respondent was working as ‘Cutting Man’ with the Appellant herein on the last wages drawn of Rs. 14,000/- per month for the last 10 years. That on 18.08.2016 when the Claimant took the roll of jeans he suddenly slipped and fell down on the floor with roll of jeans. That he received several injures in his right limb. Respondent neither took the claimant to the hospital nor paid any amount for his injury. After having a lot of severe pain, he requested the Respondent for taking him to the Hospital. On 24.08.2016, the Respondent took him for his treatment to the Hospital, where an MRI of the clamant was done and doctors of the hospital advised him for operation for the injury of Spinal Limb. Till date the Respondent has not paid anything for his treatment as required under the law. That the claimant has spent Rs. 3,00,000/- on his treatment till date. A demand notice was sent on 25.01.2017 to the Appellant herein but no reply has been received by the Claimant so far. The claimant has become handicapped and lost his earning capacity of 90% and also causing him permanent partial disability.

The Appellant herein submitted before Hon’ble High Court that claimant is not his employee. The appellant’s case is that though the claimant used to be engaged by it sometimes, he was never employed for a ‘period’. As such, the claimant could neither be termed as a permanent nor as a temporary employee.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.