1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 377 of 2023 The Divisional Railway Manager, Dhanbad Rail Division, E.C. Railway, At Dhanabd, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand through authorized signatory Anup Kumar Sinha, aged about 56 years, son of late Vijay Shanker Prasad Sinha, resident at Shankar Colony, Bekar Bandh, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, Jharkhand …….. Appellant/Opposite Party Versus 1. Bibha Kumari, wife of late Rakesh Kumar Ranjan 2. Srishti Ranjan, daughter of late Rakesh Kumar Ranjan 3. Priyesh Ranjan, son of late Rakesh Kumar Ranjan 4. Jayanti Sinha, wife of Samrendra Prasad 5. Samrendra Prasad, son of late Prahalad Mahto All residents of Virndawan Colony, Near K.G. Ashram P.O. and P.S. Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand ………………………. Respondents/Applicants --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1, 4 and 5: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate 07/Dated: 29/01/2025 I.A. No.8841 of 2024 has been filed for condoning the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, prayer made in I.A. is allowed. Accordingly, the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. I.A. No.8841 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of. 4. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5. 5. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour court-cum-E.C. Commissioner, Dhanbad in W.C. Case No. 06/2022 whereby the learned court was pleased to allow the claim case in favour of the applicants and against the opposite party on contest whereby amount of Rs. 7,25,480/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident of the deceased i.e. 10.02.2019 till the date of actual payment was directed to be paid and further direction was made to the appellant to deposit the said compensation amount with interest within 60 days from the date of that award. 2 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said award has been deposited to maintain the present appeal before the High Court. He further submits that Rakesh Kumar was working at Divisional Office, Dhanbad in control room as Chief Controller having employee No. 27304160885. On 10/02/2019 the deceased employee was on duty from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and returning to his resident by his motorcycle bearing registration No.JH10AB-2736 and when he reached near the gate of D.R.M. Office unknown vehicle dashed him due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Jalan Hospital, Dhanbad for treatment then for further better treatment he was referred to Mission Hospital, Durgapur where he died on 12/02/19 at 7:00 p.m.. On 15/02/2019, FIR No.46/2019 was lodged against unknown vehicle under section 279/304A IPC. The deceased was aged about 41 years. He submits that in this back ground, the said case was filed by the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that upon notice the appellant has appeared and filed written statement on 17.11.2022 and took preliminary objection of maintainability of the said claim case. He submits that the learned court has erroneously passed the said award as the deceased was working on the post of Chief Controller and he was not the employee within the meaning of Employee’s Compensation Act and inspite of that the learned court has passed the award. He further submits that the point of limitation in filing of the said case has also been wrongly decided by the learned court. He submits that in the light of section 3 of Employee’s Compensation Act the accident has not taken place at the place of working. On these background he submits that this appeal may kindly be admitted. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 submits that the learned court has dealt with all the above aspects and has rightly come to the conclusion and there is no illegality in award and in view of that this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 9. The learned Commissioner has framed six issues to decide the said claim case and Issue No. IV was with regard to deceased as to whether he was employee of Railway working as Chief Controller or not. The learned court has found 3 that A.W.1, A.W. 2 and A.W. 3 (retired employee ) all these witnesses have stated that Rakesh Kumar Ranjan was Railway employee who met with an accident on 10.02.2019 when after performing his duty at 6.00 p.m., he was returning to his residence on his motorcycle and when he arrived at the gate of D.R.M. office, he was dashed by some unknown vehicle and he was seriously injured and thereafter he was taken to Jalan Hospital, Dhanbad for treatment where after for better treatment he was referred to Mission Hospital, Durgapur where he died on 12.02.2019 at 7.00 P.M. and after his death Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 46 of 2019 was instituted. A.W.1 has further stated that Railway Authority always giving assurance to make payment of compensation under Employee’s Compensation Act but same was not paid. A.W.3 who is retired employee has stated that the post of Chief Controller of CIC does not come within the category of officer- and the deceased was not an officer. He has further disclosed that it is the practice in Railway that officer does not work in roaster duty rather they make themselves available for duty of 24 hours but the deceased Rakesh Kumar Ranjan was performing roaster duty. Exhibit 1 was C.C. of F.I.R, Exhibit 2 was C.C.of chargesheet, Exhibit 3 was postmortem report, Exhibit 4 was photocopy of salary slip, Exhibit 5 was the photocopy of death certificate, Exhibits, 6, 7, 8 and 9 was with regard to identity, Aadhar, salary slip etc. 10. In view of above facts, the learned Commissioner has come to the conclusion that deceased was the employee of Railway and was working as Chief Controller in CIC Board in DRM Office and after performing his duty he weas going to his home but near the D.R.M. gate he was dashed by unknown vehicle. The registration of the F.I.R, chargesheet, postmortem report clearly proved that the accident has taken place and in view of above finding of the learned tribunal the first point of argument by the learned counsel for the appellant that he was not the employee within the Employee’s Compensation Act, is misconceived one. 11. In the light of section 2 (dd) (i)read with Schedule II the railway employees are said to be employed with the railway. Thus, seeing the nature of the work being discharged by the deceased, it cannot be said that he was not employed 4 and it has been proved that he was discharging roaster duty, as such the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is negated. 12. The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that while he was returning to home after discharging duty near D.R.M. office the accident has taken place in view of that the accident has not taken place at the place of duty, this argument appears to be misconceived one. 13. Had the deceased had not used the motorcycle for coming at the workplace on time that would being an element of uncertainty in the departure schedule and efficiency of service. Admittedly, it has been proved that after discharging the duty he was going back to home and the accident took place near the D.R.M. office of Railway. 14. The Notional extension was subject matter in the case of “ Leela Bai and Another V. Seema Chouhan and Another” (2019) 4 SCC 325 wherein para 7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7. In the facts of the case, and the evidence available, it is evident that the deceased was present at the bus terminal and remained with the bus even after arrival from Indore not by choice, but by compulsion and necessity, because of the nature of his duties. The route timings of the bus required the deceased to be readily available with the bus so that the passenger service being provided by Respondent 1 remained efficient and was not affected. If the deceased would have gone home everyday after parking the bus and returned the next morning, the efficiency of the timing of the bus service facility to the travelling public would definitely have been affected, dependant on the arrival of the deceased at the bus- stand from his house. Naturally that would bring an element of uncertainty in the departure schedule of the bus and efficiency of the service to the travelling public could be compromised. Adherence to schedule by the deceased would naturally enure to the benefit of Respondent 1 by enhancement of income because of timely service. It is not without reason that the deceased would not go home for weeks as deposed by the appellant. Merely because the deceased was coming down the roof of the bus after having his meal, cannot be considered in isolation and interpreted so myopically to hold that he was off duty and therefore would not be entitled to compensation.” 15. In view of above reasons, the second ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is also not sound, that is negated by this Court. 16. So far 3rd point with regard to limitation is concerned, that point was also considered by the learned tribunal and Issue No. III was framed with regard to limitation and considering the statement made in limitation petition, the plea of Covid- 19 was taken and due that there is delay in filing of claim case and the learned Commissioner considering the Covid-19 pandemic has condoned the delay. 5 17. The Court finds that there is no illegality in condoning of the same in view of the fact that during Covid-19 the statutory period of limitation was also extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Court as such there is no illegality on that point also. 18. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis no case of interference is made out, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. As the main appeal is already dismissed I.A. No. 8840 of 2024 meant for stay, is also dismissed. 19. The deposited amount before the learned Commissioner shall be released in favour of the claimants forthwith. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R.