COMMANDING OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL FORCE, MUMBAI versus BHAVNABEN DINSHBHAI BHABHOR & OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 26-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 660 : 2023 INSC 859
660
CASE DETAILS
COMMANDING OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL 
FORCE, MUMBAI
v.
BHAVNABEN DINSHBHAI BHABHOR & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3592 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
[B. V. NAGARATHNA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether a Constable of a Railway Protection 
Force (RPF) can be treated as a “Workman” u/s.2(1)(n), Employees 
Compensation Act, 1923 even though, by virtue of amended s.3, Railway 
Protection Force Act, 1957, he is a member of the Armed Forces of the 
Union; and whether, on account of availability of alternative remedy to 
apply for compensation u/ss.124 and 124-A, Railways Act, 1989, a claim 
under the 1923 Act is maintainable.
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(n) – Constable of a 
RPF if a “Workman” u/s.2(1)(n), despite RPF being declared as an 
armed force of the Union – Claim under the 1923 Act if barred in view 
of alternative remedy under Railways Act, 1989:
Held: Mere declaration in s.3, 1957 Act that the RPF shall be an 
“armed force of the Union” is not suﬃ  cient to take it out of the purview of 
the 1923 Act – Thus, despite declaring RPF as an armed force of the Union, 
the legislative intent was not to exclude its members or their heirs from the 
beneﬁ ts of compensation payable under the 1923 Act or the 1989 Act – Thus, 
in the present case, the claim set up by the claimants-respondents under the 
1923 Act was maintainable – Further, according to s.128, Railways Act, 
1989, notwithstanding the right to claim compensation u/s.124 or s.124-A 
of the 1989 Act, the right of a person to claim compensation under the 
1923 Act, or any other law for the time being in force, is speciﬁ cally saved 
subject to the condition that he shall not be entitled to claim compensation 
more than once in respect of the same accident – In the present case, there 
661
is nothing to indicate that the respondents’ claim under the 1923 Act was 
made after receiving compensation for the same accident under any other 
Act or law – Hence, the application under the 1923 Act was not barred on 
account of there being an alternative remedy under the 1989 Act – Appeal 
lacks merit – The Indian Railways Act, 1890 – Railway Protection Force 
Act, 1957 – ss.2(1)(a), 3, 10, 19 – Act No. 60 of 1985. [Paras 58, 62-64]
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – ss.2(1)(e), 2(1)(n)(i) and 
3 – Railways Act, 1989 – s.2(34):
Held: The 1923 Act as it stood at the relevant time (i.e., the date of 
the accident out of which the claim arose) was an Act to provide for the 
payment by certain class of employers to their workman, compensation for 
injury by accident – s.3, 1923 Act, as it stood at the time of the accident in 
question, provided that if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident 
arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be 
liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provision of Chapter II 
of the 1923 Act – “Employer” is deﬁ ned in s.2(1)(e) wherein by use of the 
phrase “any body of persons whether incorporated or not” the legislative 
intent is clear as to include a juristic person whether incorporated or not – 
However, to maintain a claim against an “employer” under the 1923 Act, 
there must be a workman and an employer relationship; the workman must 
suﬀ er personal injury in an accident; and that accident must arise out of and 
in the course of his employment – At the time of the accident in question, 
“workman” was deﬁ ned by s.2(1)(n), 1923 Act – Workman meant any one 
of the persons speciﬁ ed in s.2(1)(n) (i), (ia) and (ii), 1923 Act; but would 
not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed 
Forces of the Union – Further, the deﬁ nition of a “Railway Servant” as 
contained in s.2(34), 1989 Act was amended by which, notwithstanding that 
from 20.09.1985 the RPF was declared an armed force of the Union, the 
deﬁ nition of a Railway Servant included a member of the RPF – Thus, since 
a railway servant continued to be a workman as per s.2(1)(n)(i), 1923 Act, 
the provisions of the 1923 Act would continue to apply to a member of the 
RPF as he does not belong to any of those categories speciﬁ ed in Schedule 
II of the 1923 Act – More so, when there is nothing in the Railways Act, 
either new or old, which may exclude the applicability of the 1923 Act on a 
railway servant – Constitution of India – Articles 372(2), 366 – Adaptation of 
COMMANDING OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL FORCE,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.