Tanishka Tomar & Devansh Malhotra
INTRODUCTION
In a decision titled “Mohammed Ali Abdul Samad Khan v. Dawood Mohd. Khati (FA No. 169 of 2014)[1]” Hon’ble Bombay High Court was confronted with an issue wherein, it was contended that the Insurance Company be absolved of its liability to pay compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to the family of the employee who succumbed to an accident taking place during the course of employment, since the employee was a minor and could not be engaged in any kind of employment as per law by the employer. The Court ruled in the favour of the deceased and held company liable for paying compensation to the family of the deceased.
FACTS
Appellants filed a claim based on the premise that the deceased was aged 18 at the time of the accident and was receiving wages of ₹ 5,500 per month and upon this basis a compensation of ₹ 6,22,545/- was assessed in accordance with the provision of Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The insurer opposed the above-said claim before the Commissioner/Labour Court, and it was disputed that the accident suffered by the deceased arose out of or in the course of employment with the OP.
Further, it was denied that there was any nexus between the alleged injury and the alleged accident and since the police papers revealed the deceased’s age was 15 years based upon his school leaving certificate, it was stated that the claim was not maintainable under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, hence the same shall be dismissed.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-
The counsel on behalf of the appellants argued that the victim who was a minor falls under the definition of ’employee’ as provided in Section 2(4)(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. He has been entitled to the benefits under it such as wages, and thus, should also be covered under the insurance policy.
The counsel further buttressed his claims by contending that since the Insurance policy is a Contract of Indemnity and the liability must be equally fastened upon the insurance company as of the employer. By not providing the compensation, merely on the basis of the victim being a minor, defeats the purpose of the enactment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INSURANCE COMPANY-
The counsel argued that the employee was a minor during the period of employment and the insurance company does not cover any minor, thus the company would not be liable. It was asserted that the claim was not payable to the claimants, since the deceased was a minor and the claim was outside the purview of the cover of the policy; even though the age of the workmen is not mentioned in the policy but the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act are binding under the Insurance contract.
DECISION-
The High Court held that the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. Notwithstanding the fact that the victim was a minor at the time of employment and the accident, the insurance policy did not consist of any clause which stated the denial of compensation to the third party claimants, if the person is a ‘Minor’. The insurance company had admitted that the two persons were covered under the policy and thus, the validity of the policy is nowhere disputed.
The High Court has also said that the decision of the Commissioner/Labour’s court is flawed since it defeats the spirit and rationale behind the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and is not in consonance with the same as it suffers some grave errors.
ANALYSIS-
The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 had been formulated in order to provide the employees with the compensation on occurrence of any kind of injury/disability/death during the course of employment. As it does not entail any age limit for the person to be employed, furthermore even not prohibiting compensation to the minor employee explicitly.
The previous decision of the Commissioner/Labour’s Court refutes the objective of the aforementioned act and entitles the claimants to recover compensation only from the employer with a very negligible chance of recovering the compensation. While on the contrary, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court opined that the dependants of the deceased shall be entitled to compensation by the Insurance Company owing to the fact that the employee entitled to the wages must not be denied compensation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court modified the impugned judgement only to the extent of fixing the liability jointly and severally upon the employer and the Insurance Company.
In the present decision, the court vindicates the rationale behind the Workmen’s Compensation Fund and denies the exemption of the Insurance Company. Although the Child & Adolescent Labour (Prohibition & Regulation Act), 1986 prohibits engaging services of children below 14 years of age in any hazardous avocation yet the workmen’s compensation act, being a beneficial piece of legislation cannot be overridden. Therefore, the employee, even being a minor, cannot be denied compensation for any injury which has been covered under the Insurance Policy by not explicitly ruling out the possibility of the same.
CONCLUSION
The above named decision rendered by the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court clearly brings out the correct law as if under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 there is no prohibition on employment of any minor by the employee and also in the Insurance Policy there is no explicit condition contained which absolves the company of its liability regarding the same. Workmen’s Compensation Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and applying the canons of interpretation the Court rightly decided in the favour of the deceased Workman/Labour thereby ensuring the benefit be ensured to the dependants or the family of the deceased.
[1] Mohammed Ali Abdul Samad Khan v. Dawood Mohd. Khati, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 6670, decided on 10-12-2021.
Leave a Reply