Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Union Of India Rep.By Its General ... vs Smt. R. Ramulamma on 23 August, 2024
APHC010441702005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3460]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 695/2005
Between:
Union Of India Rep.by Its General Manager ...APPELLANT(S)
And 2 Others, and Others
AND
Smt R Ramulamma ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO(SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
FOR CENTRAL GOVT.)
2. N SASIKALA (STANDING COUNSEL FOR RAILWAYS)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. VENKAT REDDY THIPPARTHI
The Court made the following:
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.M.A.No.695 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal is filed under section 30 of Employees
Compensation Act, questioning the order dated 08.11.2004 in
W.C.No.29 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle -II,
Visakhapatnam. The parties are referred to as per their
nomenclature before the Commissioner.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:
The claimant is the wife of deceased late Sri R.Tatha, who
was a licenced porter in railways. On 14.11.2001, while the
deceased was transporting railway luggage from platform to
parcel godown, a Rail Engine dashed the parcel trolley which he
was dragging and he suffered severe injuries as a result of which
he died on 30.11.2001. It was contended that the deceased was
45 years old at the time of accident and was earning an amount
of Rs.1,911/- per month.
3. The O.P No.1 and 3 i.e Union of India and Divisional
Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railways have not filed any
counter. The O.PNo.2 i.e Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,
South Eastern Railway filed counter affidavit stating that
Visakhapatnam Division is in East Coast Railway and hence,
East Coast Railway should be made as a necessary party. It was
further pleaded that the deceased being a licensed porter is not
entitled to be covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
4. The Commissioner framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased late Sri R. Tata
was a workman of the Opposite Parties
Railways as defined under Workmen
Compensation Act.
2. If so, whether the failure of the applicant
in adding the East Coast Railways as a
party to the Claim application relieves the
Opposite Parties from the liability of
Payment of Compensation under the
W.C.Act.
3. If not, to what amount of compensation
the applicant is entitled to?
5. The claimant examined himself as A.W.1 and one Bandaru
Nageswara Rao, General Secretary of the Licensed Porter Union
was examined as A.W.2. The claimant marked Exs.A.1 and A.2
on her behalf and R.W.1 was marked on behalf of the
respondents. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration
the evidence, the age and wages of the deceased, granted
compensation of Rs.1,52,496/-. Hence, the appeal.
6. Heard Sri Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the Opposite party contended that
'Porter' cannot be termed to be a 'workman' as no wages are paid
and in the absence of any employer-employee relationship, the
Commissioner erred in making the appellant liable to pay the
compensation.
8. The Porters in Railway Stations are given licence and are
working under the overall supervision of the Station Master and
they carry out the instructions given by them by the Platform
Inspector/Supervisor etc., in connection with handling
passengers' luggage and parcels and luggage in the custody of
the Railways.
9. The question whether a 'Porter' comes within the definition
of 'workman' under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was
considered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported
in Narayanan v. Southern Railway1 (MFA No.209 of 1977 dated
LAWS (KER)1979-9-25
24.09.1979). In the said judgment, the definition of 'workman'
under the Workmen's Compensation Act as well as 'Railway
Servant' under Indian Railways Act were considered and it was
held that Railway Porters are also to be treated as workman.
Para 17 thereof is extracted below for ready reference:
17. In the instant case, there is the statutory obligation
on the part of the railway to provide for the convenience
of passengers and to regulate the carriage of their
luggages. The system of licensing of porters is in
discharge of that obligation. The licensed porters are to
handle not only the luggage of the passengers but also
the parcels and luggages in the custody of the railway.
He is to work under the overall supervision of officers of
the railway. He is to work according to the roster drawn
by the Station authorities. He is to receive charges only
at the rate stipulated by the railway authorities. He is
being supplied by the railway administration, uniforms,
badges and buckles, to be used during work. He is
being given free out-door treatment in the railway
hospital or dispensary. He is under the disciplinary
control of the railway and is liable to suspension and his
licence is liable for cancellation for misconduct,
disobedience, inefficient working etc. There is, therefore,
no room for doubt that there is the relationship of
employer and employee between the railway
administration and the licensed porters. It is also made
out that the employment is in connection with the service
of a railway. That is sufficient to make the appellant in
this case an employee of the railway.
10. A similar view was taken by a single Judge of the Kerala
High Court in Philomina & another v. Indian Railways, rep., by
Divisional Manager2 after referring to Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989. Though the above judgment arose under the
Railway Claims Tribunal, the reasoning will be applicable to the
facts of this case also.
11. The counsel for the appellant had cited Union of India &
others v. Nanda Kumar and others3, wherein it was held that
licenced Porters are not entitled to parity in wages with casual
labourers having temporary status. This is not the issue that falls
for consideration in this appeal as the employer-employee
relationship is the primary point for consideration in this appeal.
12. In the light of the well reasoned judgment of the Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court, this Court is in agreement with
the reasoning given in the said judgment and is of the opinion that
the Railway Porters, who were in the service of the Railways
cannot be held to be disentitled to compensation under the
Workman's Compensation Act. Therefore, this Court does not
AIR 2007 Ker 210
(1997) 11 SCC 661
find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the
Commissioner.
13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions,
if any, shall stand closed.
________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY,J
Date: 23.08.2024
KLP
