LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Beedi Workers To Receive The Status Of Workmen As Defined Under Section S (N) Of The Workmen’s Compensation Act

Yashvardhan Gullapalli ,
  06 July 2022       Share Bookmark

Court :
High Court of Telangana
Brief :

Citation :
C.M.A.No.2065 of 2002

Case title:
Yeddandi Venkataiah Vs. M/s.Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products Ltd.

Date of Order:
09/06/2022

Bench:
Justice M. Laxman

Parties:
Yeddandi Venkataiah – Petitioner
Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products Ltd. – Respondents

SUBJECT

In an appeal by the petitioner for compensation for the death of his daughter, a tobacco worker, the Telangana High Court held that the tobacco workers fall under the definition of workers as specified in section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

FACTS

  • The original complaint was filed in the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Karimnagar, in which the petitioner demanded compensation for the death of his daughter who had died in course of employment at the Respondent’s factory.
  • Order passed by the Commissioner builds its rationale around the main contention of whether the people employed at a beedi factory can be titled as ‘workmen’.
  • The claim petition was dismissed in favor of the responding party as the Commissioner found that the people working in beedi factories cannot be termed as workers as seen under Section 2(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
  • Thus, the petitioner went on to file a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the above order in the High Court.

ISSUE

  • Whether A beedi roller can be regarded as a workman under Section 2 (n) r/w schedule 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation?

Arguments Forwarded by the Appellant

  • It was reiterated that section 2 (n) of when read with schedule 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Scheme would validate and establish the fact that tobacco workers can be treated as workmen.

Arguments Advanced by the Defendant

  • The learned attorney for the opposing party claims that there is no manufacturing process that might be used to interpret the deceased as a workwoman, hence the Commissioner's instructions do not necessitate any inference.

Judgment

  • It was stated that a quick glance at the definition of "workman" in Clause 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act reveals that anyone employed in one of the roles listed in Schedule II falls under this term.
  • Any individual engaged in a position other than a clerical one in a location or within a district where a manufacturing operation as specified in Clause-k of Section 2 of the Factories Act is taking place is plainly falling under the concept of a workman, according to Clause 2 of Schedule II.
  • A manufacturing process is one that creates an item or substance with the intention of using it, selling it, transporting it, delivering it, or disposing of it, according to the meaning of 2(k).

Conclusion

The court determined that rolling Beedies is simply the manufacture of any object or substance with the intention of using, selling, or transporting it on the basis of the aforementioned reading of the requirements. Therefore, the deceased's occupation as a Beedi roller certainly meets the description of a workwoman. The appeal was upheld, and the Commissioner was given another chance to decide the merits of the allegation.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

 
"Loved reading this piece by Yashvardhan Gullapalli?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 318




Comments







Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query