CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. CHANDRIKA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved and to be answered in this batch of appeals is whether the person employed by the employer under the National Rural Employment Scheme framed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. 2005 is entitled for compensation under the provisions of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, over and above the amount of ex gratia payable under the Scheme framed under the Act of 2005, in light or non-obstante Clause enumerated in Section 28 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. In order to answer the substantial question of law, so framed, the imperative facts required to be noticed in nutshell, are as under:

(2.) Mr. Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/employer would submit that the learned Commissioner has fallen into error in entertaining and granting the said application for compensation under the provisions of E.C. Act to the claimants. He would further submit that the employee under the scheme enacted under Schedule-II by virtue of Clause-26 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short 'MGNREGA, 2005'), he would only be entitled for ex gratia amount of Rs. 25,000 and the application filed under Section 10 of the E.C. Act, was not maintainable, therefore, the impugned award granting compensation under of E.C. Act deserves to be set-aside.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would support the award and submit that the compensation granted by the learned Commissioner under the provisions of E.C. Act is just and proper. He would further submit that E.C. Act is beneficial legislation and right guaranteed there under cannot be taken away under provisions of MGNREGA, 2005. According to Mr. Shukla, the right of workmen to claim compensation under the E.C. Act has neither being taken away nor abrogates by the MGNREGA, 2005, and Section 28 of MGNREGA, 2005, cannot have overriding effect over the provision of the E.C. Act. The workman is not disabled to claim compensation under the E.C. Act, in additional to ex gratia amount granted under the Act and scheme framed under the MGNREGA, 2005. He would further submit that two statues deals with different subject, therefore, Section 28 of the MGNREGA, 2005 has no overriding effect over the provision contained in the E.C. Act.