Person Engaged In Construction, Maintenance Or Demolition Of Buildings Above One Storey Is Employee Under Employees Compensation Act: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that any person engaged in construction, maintenance, repairing or demolition of any building which is more than one story high is an employee for the purposes of compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
Claimant-appellant's husband was carrying out wall painting and repair work when he fell from the third floor of a building and sustained injuries which led to his death. Since the death was during employment and while working, the widow sought compensation along with interest under Section 3 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 from the contractor who had employed his services and the house owner where the deceased was carrying out works.
Without framing the issues for determination, the Employees Compensation Commissioner rejected the claim on grounds that there was no employer-employee relationship existing between the parties.
Challenging the order of the Commissioner, the appellant-claimant argued that the contractor had admitted to engaging the deceased for carrying out repair and painting works and same was accepted by the Employees Compensation Commissioner. Thus, the claim petition was erroneously rejected.
The Court relied on Section 2(dd) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 which defines “employee” as a person working in capacity described in Schedule II whether in a contractual relationship, expressed or implied, oral or in writing. Para(viii) of Schedule II defines “employee” as a person who employed in the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of provided the building is higher than one storey.
“From the bare perusal of definition of employee it is very much clear that any person engaged in construction, maintenance, repairing or demolition of any building, which is more than one story in height above the ground is treated as employee,” held Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit.
Observing that the deceased fell down while working in the employment and sustained deadly injuries, the Court held that he was an employee under the Act and was entitled to compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Seema Devi v. Vimal Jain And Another [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1596 of 2022]