GULABDEI AHIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment of this Court rendered under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') rejecting the claim for compensation by the wife of the deceased on the ground that the deceased was employed in a clerical capacity in the Railways and thus, not covered by the definition of workman under Section 2(1)(n) read with Schedule II, Clause (i) of the Act.

(2.) FACTS : The deceased was employed by Eastern Railway administration as Head Trains Clerk. He was murdered while in course of duty, when he had gone to the railway yard for operation of railway wagons and coaches, on 13.4.1967 by miscreants. The claim was laid by the wife of the deceased for a lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - as provided under Section 4 of the Act read with Schedule IV. The Railways assailed the claim, inter alia, on the grounds that the claimant is not the legally married wife; that the claim is barred by limitation; that the death was not in course of the deceased's employment; and that the claim is not maintainable in law as well as in fact.

(3.) MR . Tara Kumar Das, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant, contended that the deceased was a supervisory staff and was not working in a clerical capacity in the Railways. His duty required the operation of the railway wagons in the yard. In discharge of his responsibility he was assisted by 37 clerks whose duty was to take down the number of the wagons to facilitate the operational duty cast upon the deceased. There has been an admission of this fact by the Yard Master as would be evident from the exhibits as well as the evidence of the Railways' witness No. 1. According to the Learned Counsel, Railways have not even pleaded, in the show cause, that the deceased was working in a clerical capacity, therefore, he is outside the definition of workman. He has further contended that even assuming that the deceased was working in a clerical capacity even then the claim was maintainable in view of Schedule II, Clause (xii). Nobody has appeared for the Railways. I have no difficulty in holding that the claim could only be entertained if the deceased is covered under Section 2(1)(n)(i) read with Schedule II Clause (i) of the Act. Clause (xii) of Schedule II deals with such persons who are employed by a contractor or sub -contractor fulfilling a contract with the Railways. Therefore, said clause has no application. I find, therefore, no merit in this submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.