ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRA BANK MARYADIT versus SHAHJADI BEGUM AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 29-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRA BANK MARY ADIT 
A 
v. 
SHAHJADI BEGUM AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
B 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; Ss. 2(e) and 30: 
Hiring of a jeep from a bank by State authorities for election duty-
Driver of the jeep met with an accident and died while doing cleaning of C 
septic tank at the residence of the authority-Wife of the deceased claiming 
... 
. compensation from employer-bank on the ground that death of her husband 
caused during the course of employment-:-Allowed by Commissioner, Workmen 
Compensation-Appeal dismissed by High Court-On appeal. Held: Owner 
of the jeep, the bank was bound to follow the order of requisitioning authority D 
as it was required for election duty-Services of the deceased were placed 
under the control of the requisitioning authority, thus employer would be the 
State Govemment-Commissioner of Workmen Compensation committed a 
jurisdictional error in directing the bank to deposit compensation amount 
as the deceased was in effect and substance under the control of the 
requisitioning authority-Since the order so passed was wholly without E 
jurisdiction, the same is a nullity-High Court also erred in not condoning 
the delay in filing the appeal and affirming the order passed by the 
Commissioner-Jn the facts qnd circumstances of the case, it could be 
appropriate to direct the State Government to reimburse to the bank the 
compensation amount as deposited by it-Directions issued. 
'Employer' and 'employee'-Meaning of in the context of the Workmen's 
Compensation Act, 1923. 
Appellant is a cooperative bank. It owned a jeep, which was requisitioned 
F 
by Respondent No.2 for election duty. The driver ofthe jeep, for all intent and G 
purport, was under the control of Respondent No.4 District Election Officer. 
Allegedly, Respondent No.2 instructed the said driver to help the workers in 
cleaning the septic tank at his residence. In the process, an accidenttook 
place resulting in the death of the driver. Respondent No. I-wife of the deceased 
811 
H 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A filed a claim petition claiming compensation under the Workmen's 
Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner of Workmen 
. ' 
Compensation. She had also filed an application for her employment on 
compassionate ground. Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, held that the 
deceased workman died during the course of employment with the appellant-
bank. Appellant-bank preferred an appeal under Section 30 of the Act in the 
B High Court with an application for condonation of delay Rejecting the 
application for condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal, the High Court 
directed the bank to deposit the compensation amount. Hence the present 
appeal 
C 
Partly allowing the appeal the Court 
HELD:l.l. The Workmen's Compensation Act was enacted to provide 
for payment of compensation for injury by accident. The term 'employer' has 
been defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. However, the term "employee' has not 
been defined in the Act. The definition of employer therefore, embraces within 
D its fold not only a person who employs another either permanently or on 
temporary basis but also those who were in control of the workman temporarily 
lent or let on hire to them by the persons with whom the workman has entered 
into a contract ofservice. (815-H; 816-CI 
1.2. In the present case, the owner of the jeep was bound to comply with 
E the order of requisition of a vehicle when the same is required to be placed on 
election duty. Since the deceased was under the control of the bank and in 
effect and substance under the control of Respondent No.2, the Commissioner 
of Workmen Compensation committed jurisdictional error in directing the 
appellant to deposit the amount of compensation. The High court, in that view 
F of the matter, should have taken a liberal view in the matter and condoned the 
delay in filing the appeal as also depositing the awarded amount in Court. 
The order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation was 
wholly without jurisdiction, the same was a nullity. It was coram nonjudice, 
[816-D-E-FJ 
G 
1.3. It has been found as of fact by the Commissioner of Workmen 
Compensation that the deceased was under the complete control of the 
requisitioning authority. He would, therefore, be the employer. As the jeep 
was requisitioned under a statute, the bank had no other option but to put the 
same under tl1e servi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.