LI Network
Published on: 30 September 2023 at 11:07 IST
The Supreme Court affirmed that officers of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can seek compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, even though the RPF has been designated as an armed force of the Union.
A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manoj Misra held that despite the declaration of the RPF as an armed force of the Union, legislative intent did not aim to exclude its members or their heirs from the compensation benefits payable under the 1923 Act or the 1989 Act.
The case in question revolved around the husband of the respondent, who served as a Constable in the RPF and tragically lost his life in a work-related accident in 2008.
The deceased’s heirs sought compensation under the 1923 Act, a claim opposed by the appellant on the grounds that the deceased was a part of the Armed Forces of the Union and, therefore, not a “workman” under the 1923 Act.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that due to Section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, the deceased was considered part of the Armed Forces of the Union. Since Section 2 of the 1923 Act excludes individuals working as members of the Armed Forces of the Union from the definition of ‘workman,‘ the appellant contended that the heirs were not entitled to compensation under the Act. However, the Supreme Court did not concur with the appellant’s position.
The Supreme Court observed that the term “armed forces of the Union” came into effect on January 26, 1950, to replace the words “His Majesty’s naval, military or air forces,” as per the “Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950” issued by the President under Article 372(2) of the Constitution. This change was made to align with the Indian Constitution.
The Court emphasized that a mere declaration of this nature would not remove the benefits of the 1923 Act from RPF officers unless such legislative intent was explicitly demonstrated.
The Court stated, “Indisputably, the 1923 Act is a pre-independence statute; therefore, on India being declared a Republic by our Constitution, the use of the phrase ‘His Majesty’s naval, military or air forces’ appearing therein became antithetical to our Constitution. Hence, to make it in accord with our Constitution, it was considered necessary to substitute the said phrase with the phrase ‘armed forces of the Union.’ However, neither the Constitution of India (see Article 366) nor The General Clauses Act, 1897 or the 1923 Act defines ‘armed forces of the Union.’ Therefore, in our view, mere declaration in Section 3 of the 1957 Act that the RPF shall be an ‘armed force of the Union’ is not sufficient to take it out of the purview of the 1923 Act.”
The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was crucial. In other words, the Court sought to determine whether, by declaring an RPF member as a member of the armed forces of the Union, the legislature intended to deprive them of benefits they would otherwise receive as railway servants under the 1989 Act.
The Court concluded that despite designating the RPF as an armed force of the Union, the legislative intent did not intend to exclude RPF officers from the purview of the 1923 Act. Since the definition of a ‘Railway Servant’ includes RPF members under the Railways Act, 1989, and since railway servants continue to be considered workmen as per Section 2 of the 1923 Act, its provisions are applicable to RPF members. Additionally, Section 128 of the Railways Act clarifies that the right to claim compensation under the 1989 Act does not affect the right to recover compensation under the 1923 Act.
The Court noted that Section 19 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, as amended in 1985, and Section 3 of the Act designating the RPF as a Union armed force did not incorporate provisions to exempt the applicability of the 1923 Act.
The amendments explicitly categorized every RPF member as a railway employee for all purposes except under Chapter VIA of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, pertaining to duty hours and similar matters.
Therefore, despite Section 19 of the 1957 Act declaring that certain other labor laws do not apply to RPF members, there was no exclusion of the applicability of the provisions of the 1923 Act.
In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that the legislature did not intend to deny compensation benefits to RPF officers under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Commanding Officer, Railway Protection Special Force, Mumbai V. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor