W.P. (22D_N9. 3961 IZOOB Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 29.07.2ooe HIGHtCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR POST FOR ORDERS ON 29’“ JULV 2008 l: PETITIONER RD. Rajak Vs RESPONDENTS Commissioner for Workmen's ' Compensn‘fion Labour Cour‘}, Rqjnandgaon & others IQH COURT OF CHHATTI$6ARH AT BILASPU W P (227) No 3961 OF 2008 H R PETITIONER R.D.‘Rajak, 5/0 CR. Rajak, Aged abou'l' 53 year-s, Working as u Sub Fares? Ranger, Bhuia‘fola’ R/a Village Bhulafola, Teshii—Khniragarh, Dist Rajnandgaon (C6) Vs RE5PONDENT5 1. Commissioner For Workmen's Compcnsa+ion Labour Cour‘l‘, Rajnandgaon, Disf-Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. Manforia Bai, W/o Lafe Anjari Yadav, Aged about 48 years. 3. Aafmcram, S/o LaTe Anjori Vadav, Aged abou? 32 years 4. Prahlad 5/0 Late AnJarl Yadav Aged about 3O years Respondenf N02 +0 4 are residen‘r of Village Bhula‘rola, Teshil-Khairagarh, Dist Rajnandgaan (C5) 5. Divisional Forest Offflcer, Khairagurh, R/o Khairogorh Officer, Khoiragarh, Teshii-Khairagarh, Dist Rajnandgaon (C6) Present: Mr. H.5. Ahluwaiia, Advocafe For fhe petitioner. Mr. Sushi! Dubey, Governmeni Advocafe For fhe Sinfe. ORDER (Passed on QSHJuiy, 2008) Dhirendro Mishra J 1. Heard on admission 2. Respondeni No.2 +0 4 have filed a claim peii‘iion under Section 22 of ihe Workmen's Compensation Acf, 1923 (for shor'i‘ ‘The Aci’) claiming compensal'ion for ’rhe dea‘l’h of Anjori Vadav, who was engaged as casual labour and died in his course of employment 3. Responden'i' No.1- Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation assessed ihe age of ihe deceased a: 60 years and furiher assessing Th monihly “income m‘ R31628/~ awarded e Page 2 of 4 compensm‘ion of Rs.’95,572/- 1’0 fhe ciaimanfs wifh inferes+ @ &% per annum from fhe dwe of filing of The ciaim pe'fifion. 4‘ The pe'fi'l'ioner has preferred This pefH’ion on The ground 1'hm‘ fhe deceased was engaged as casual labour in the nursery under fhe Naiional Rural Employmenf Guaranfee Scheme by The foresT deparTmenT, whereas, The peTiTioner ocTing as public officer in his official capaciTy of The foresT deparTmenT of The STaTe GovernmenT employed and enTrusTed work To The deceased. The claimanTs oughT To have implended The STaTe GovernmenT as non-applicanT in Their claim peTiTion. SecTion 23 of The ACT confers upon The Commissiener all The powers of a Civil CourT under The Code of Civil Procedure' 1908, for The purpose of Taking evidence on oaTh and of enforcing The oTTendunce of wiTn'esses and compelling The producTion of documenTs and moTerial objecTs and he shall be deemed To be a Civil CourT for all The purposes of SecTion 195(and of ChapTer- XXVI of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In a claim peTiTion againsT The STaTe GovernmenT, The STaTe GovernmenT is necessary parTy as per SecTion 79 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Relying upon The judgmenT in The maTTer of The STaTe of Kerala Vs. The General Manager. SouThern Railway. Madras reporTed in AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 2538 iT was conTended ThaT wiThouT impleading The STaTe GovernmenT as a parTy, The peTiTion under The AcT for compensaTion for The deaTh of deceased Anjori Vadav againsT The peTiTioner, who is a mere officer of The foresT deparTmenT, was noT mainTainable and Therefore, The peTiTioner cannoT be saddled wiTh The liabiliTy of paymenT of compensaTion To respondenT No.2 To 4 personally. \ \ ‘\I Page 3 of 4 5. The poirw tha‘r is to be considered in fhis pefHion is whe+Her fhe Depufy Ranger was 'rhe employer of 'rhe deceased Anjur-i Yadav. @‘ 6. From perusal of The impugned award if is eviden'r fhaf respondenf No.2 +0 4 filed a claim p’efi'rion agains'r lhe Depu‘ly ‘Fores'l' Range Officer RD. Rajak, Depu'ly Ranger, Nursery, Bhulafola and the Divisional Foresf Officer, Khairagarh. The deceased was employed as a casual workman in l'he Nursery‘ Bhulafola under fhe Na‘rional Rural Employment Guaranfee Scheme. The pe‘ri'rioner was in-charge of The nursery under The overall supervision of respondenf No.5- Divisional Foresi Officer. 7. Section 2 (1) (e) of the Acf defines “the employer 'l’hus:- ‘employer' includes any body of persons whefher incorporafed or not and any managing agen‘r of an employer and fhe legal representafive of a deceased employer, and , when The services of a workman are 'lemporarily lem‘ or le‘l on hire 'ro anofher person by The person wiTh whom The workman has enTered inTo a conTracT of service or apprenTiceship, means such oTher person while The workman is working for him: 8. The peTiTioner being in-charge'of The nursery where The deceased Anjori Yadav was engaged ‘as labourer. and he enTrusTed work To The deceased labourer aT The Time of incidenT is Thus included in The defini‘fion of employer. The peTiTioner and The Divisional-ForesT Officer, who are officers under The STaTe GovernmenT, are'noT immune from The provisions of. The AcT inasmuch as The deparTmenTs of '. governmenT have been specifically included in SecTion 2 (2) of The AcT. l VJ ,. ,_ i” v Re 1134'). H ’i \ M Page 4 of 4 9. Therefore. in 'H1e consider-ed opinion of This Court, fhere is no illegali'ry, infirmi'i'y or jurisdic‘rional error commi'Hed.by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensofion in passing the impugned award againsf fhe pe‘ri'fioner'. 10. In The resul'r, fhe pe'ri'rion has no subsfance, fhe some deserves To be dismissed and if is accordingly hereby dismissed a‘r +he admission s-rage itself. Sdl- 11. No order as io cosi‘s. i V i i Dhirendl‘a MiShra i Judge ~_23/07/2008 [k 7 i Roshan/-i\ ‘9‘ x»