The Delhi High Court in an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘EC Act’) has held that the occurrence of an employee's murder during the course of employment does not preclude the legal heirs from seeking compensation under the Act. The judgment addressed the appeal filed by Neelu Kumari and others against the Labor Commissioner's decision, dismissing their claim for compensation.
Brief Facts of the Case:
Neelu Kumari, along with other appellants, filed the appeal challenging the order of the Labour Commissioner dated November 30, 2015. The appellants sought compensation under the EC Act in connection with the demise of one Brij Kishore Gupta, who tragically lost his life on December 25, 2012, while operating a three-tier vehicle. The claim was based on the contention that the deceased was an employee of Shri Om, the first respondent in the case.
Contentions of the Parties:
The appellants, represented by Mr. Anshuman Bal, the deceased was an employee of the respondent, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000. The claim for compensation was rooted in the assertion that the death occurred in the course of employment, and as the legal heirs were solely dependent on the deceased's earnings, they sought compensation in accordance with the provisions of the EC Act.
On the other hand, the respondent denied the employment relationship, asserting that the deceased was never his employee and that he did not pay any wages to him. Moreover, it was argued that the vehicle involved in the incident was jointly driven by both the first respondent and the deceased on a sharing basis. The second respondent, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., aligned with the first respondent's position, contending that they were not liable to pay compensation as the deceased was not an employee within the provisions of Section 2(1)(n) of the EC Act.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court, in its judgment, examined two key issues: first, the existence of an employer-employee relationship, and second, whether the murder of the deceased disqualified the claimants from seeking compensation.
Regarding the first issue, the High Court held that the appellants failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the employer-employee relationship. The testimony of the deceased's wife, Neelu Kumari, lacked corroboration and did not inspire confidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's finding that there was no relationship between the parties was upheld.
However, the High Court disagreed with the Commissioner's stance on the second issue. It opined that the Commissioner erroneously held that the murder of an employee during the performance of his duties would not fall under the ambit of Section 2(1)(n) of the E.C. Act. The Court referred to the precedent established in Rita Devi Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. to support the view that such an act could entitle the legal heirs to claim compensation.
The Decision of the Court:
In summary, while the appeal was dismissed due to the failure to establish an employer-employee relationship, the Court affirmed the legal rights of the deceased's heirs in seeking compensation for his murder during the course of employment.
Case Name: Neelu Kumari and Ors. vs. Om and Anr (Bajaj Alliance Gen Ins Co Ltd)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma
Case No.: FAO 56/2016 & CM APPL. 11273/2019
Advocate of the Appellant: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
Advocates of the Respondent: Ms. Ashwarya K. and Mr. Navneet Kumar, Adv. for R-2
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
