Q:I had engaged a person to carry out the painting of our family?s residential building and he had brought along several other workmen to help him with his job. Unfortunately, while they were working at the scaffolding, one of the painters fell down and died. The widow of the said painter has filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen?s Compensation Act, 1923. There is no contract between the deceased and me. Is the claim made against me maintainable? Am I liable to pay compensation under the said Act? Please advise.
Sanjay Halder, Calcutta
A:The Workmen?s Compensation Act, 1923, provides for payment of compensation to be made by certain classes of employers to their workmen in cases of injury by accident. The compensation provided is in the nature of insurance rather than a remedy for negligence. The maintainability of the claim filed by the said widow as against you, would depend on whether the deceased comes within the purview of the definition of a workman as provided in Section 2 (1) (n) of the said Act.
Under Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act, ?workman? means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer?s trade or business) who is, inter alia, employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule-II of the said Act. Even though a person employed in the construction, maintenance, repair or demolition of any building more than one storey in height is included in the list specified in Schedule II, such definition is subject to the exceptions mentioned above. Thus, generally, a casual worker employed ?otherwise than for the purpose of the employer?s trade or business? cannot be regarded as ?workman?.
On the facts provided, you were merely having your residential building painted and this was not a part of your trade or business. It also appears that you had no agreement for prior employment with the deceased nor was he regularly employed by you. Rather, another person for the purpose of executing only a part of the painting job brought him down for the particular job as a ?mistry?. Perhaps the claim for compensation would not come within the four corners of said Act. It is apparent that the deceased was engaged for work of a casual domestic nature and was not being employed in the course of or for the purpose of your trade or business. You would, therefore, fall within the exception contemplated in the definition above. Any claim by the heirs of the deceased would lie against the person who brought him to the job if he could be shown to be the employer within the provisions of the Act.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
