Compensation Award Cannot Be Passed Against a Non-Employer, Uttarakhand HC Rules in Electrocution Death Case

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside an award against the Power Corporation, holding that liability under the Employees Compensation Act can only be fastened on the actual employer of the deceased.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has allowed an appeal filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd., holding that an award under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 cannot be passed against a person who is not the employer of the deceased workman. Justice Ravindra Maithani, sitting singly, answered the substantial question of law framed in the appeal and modified the order of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Rudraprayag, directing that compensation be paid by the Divisional Forest Officer, Rudraprayag — the actual employer — and not by the Power Corporation. The judgment turns on a straightforward but consequential reading of the Act: statutory compensation liability is tied to the employment relationship, not to the cause of the accident.

The Death of Dinesh Prasad Dimri and the Claim Before the Commissioner

Dinesh Prasad Dimri, aged 48, was employed as a Watchman at the Forest Guest House, Augustmuni, District Rudraprayag, at a monthly salary of Rs. 5,200/-. On 21 October 2012, at noon, he went to check why water was not running from the taps. He fell and struck an electricity pole through which current was running, and died on the spot due to electrocution.

His widow, Smt. Bhagirathi Devi, filed a claim for compensation. The Employees Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Rudraprayag, framed four issues: whether the deceased was in employment of respondent no. 2 (the Divisional Forest Officer) on the date of the accident; whether he died due to electrocution on 21 October 2012 at the Forest Guest House; what his salary was; and from whom compensation was payable.

The Commissioner found all factual issues in favour of the claimant. The deceased was employed by the Divisional Forest Officer. He died due to electrocution. His salary was Rs. 5,200/- per month. However, the Commissioner recorded that the death occurred due to the negligence of the Electricity Department — that is, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. — and awarded Rs. 4,15,480/- as compensation against the Power Corporation.

The Power Corporation challenged this award before the High Court under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

The Substantial Question of Law

When the appeal was first heard on 21 May 2014, the Court framed the following substantial question of law:

“As to whether award can be passed under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, against the person who is held to be not an employer of the deceased?”

Counsel for the Power Corporation argued that the Act provides compensation to workmen from their employers. Since the Commissioner's own findings established that the deceased was employed by the Divisional Forest Officer and not by the Power Corporation, the award ought to have been directed against the Divisional Forest Officer alone.

Counsel for the Divisional Forest Officer did not dispute the obligation to pay. Instead, he sought a right of recovery against the Power Corporation on the ground that the death was caused by electricity running through the pole — a matter within the Power Corporation's domain. He pointed out that the Power Corporation had itself admitted that the death occurred due to electrocution.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Maithani drew a clear line between the statutory scheme of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and liability in tort. The Act, the Court observed, was enacted to provide payment by certain classes of employers to their employees of compensation for injury and accident. It is, in the Court's words, “unrelated to tort's liability under torts.”

The Court accepted as admitted that Dinesh Prasad Dimri was under the employment of the Divisional Forest Officer and that he died during the course of that employment. From this, the legal consequence followed directly: liability for compensation under the Act cannot be fastened on any person other than the employer.

The argument advanced on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer — that the Power Corporation's admitted role in the electrocution should give rise to a right of recovery — did not alter this analysis. The Court did not address any right of recovery in tort or otherwise; it confined itself to the statutory question. Under the Employees Compensation Act, the employer is the party against whom an award lies. The Power Corporation was not the employer. The award against it could not stand.

The substantial question of law was answered accordingly: an award under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 cannot be passed against a person who is not the employer of the deceased.

Directions on Refund of Deposited Amount

The Court modified the impugned judgment and order to the extent that the compensation of Rs. 4,15,480/- along with interest shall be paid by the Divisional Forest Officer, Rudraprayag (respondent no. 2) to Smt. Bhagirathi Devi. The Divisional Forest Officer was directed to make this payment within two months.

Counsel for the Power Corporation also sought refund of the amount it had deposited pursuant to the Commissioner's award. The Court allowed this as well. Since the Power Corporation was found not responsible to pay the compensation, the amount deposited by it was directed to be returned, provided the claimant had not already withdrawn it.

Order

The appeal filed by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. was allowed. The order of the Employees Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Rudraprayag, dated 14 March 2014 in Case No. 14 of 2013–14 was modified. Compensation along with interest is to be paid by the Divisional Forest Officer, Rudraprayag to Smt. Bhagirathi Devi within two months. The amount deposited by the Power Corporation is to be refunded to it, subject to the claimant not having withdrawn it.