IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No : 387 of 2018 Decided on: 04th January, 2025 __________________________________________________________ The Deputy Commissioner Kangra & Ors. ...Appellants 0 Versus Jeet Singh & Ors. …Respondents Coram: Honble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the appellants: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral) Appellants, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, Block Development Officer, Lambagaon and Principal Secretary [Rural Development], Himachal Pradesh, have come up before this Court in instant appeal, assailing the award dated 12.12.2017 [referred to as the Impugned Award], passed by the Learned Commissioner, Palampur, exercising powers under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 in RBTWCA No. 23/11/2010 whereby, respondents-claimants of deceased Smt. Nimmo Devi have been held entitled for compensation to tune of Rs 3,21,156/- [Rupees 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 2 - Three Lakh Twenty-One Thousand One Fifty Six] along with interest @ 12% per annum from 30.4.2009 till actual realization from the appellants No. 1, 2 and 4 herein, jointly and severally and by imposing penalty of Rs 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand] on appellants herein. FACTUAL MATRIX IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT: 2. One Smt. Nimmo Devi, being the wife of Respondent-Claimant no 1 and being the mother of Respondents-Claimants 2 to 5 herein, was employed as a labourer in Gram Panchayat Batahan, under MANREGA and was on work for the construction of Danga, near Hatnala Bridge, then on 28.03.2009 at about 11 AM, a Peepal Tree got uprooted due to a storm. The said tree fell on the laborers who were employed and were working at the said site, resulting in injuries to 12 workmen, including Nimmo Devi. Post incident, the seriously injured, including Nimmo Devi were referred to Civil Hospital, Palampur and thereafter to Dr. RPGMC and Hospital Tanda. The above incident ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 3 - was reported to Police Station Lambagaon and after the incident Nimmo Devi succumbed to her injuries at Dr RPGMC and Hospital Tanda. On the fateful day, the age of Nimmo Devi, deceased, was 31 years and she was earning Rs. 110/- per day under MANREGA and was earning Rs 2,000/-per month by washing clothes etc. and thus her monthly income was Rs. 6,000/- per month. Consequent upon the demise of Nimmo Devi, the respondents being the husband and children of deceased-Nimmo Devi being legal heirs and dependants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs 7,00,000/- [Rupees Seven Lakhs] and penalty of Rs 50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand] along with interest @ 12% per annum. STAND OF APPELLANTS in PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSIONER UNDER WORKMEN- EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT: 3. Claim of the respondents-claimants herein was opposed on the grounds that firstly, the deceased Nimmo Devi who was serving in MANREGA did not fall within the definition of workmen under Workmen Compensation Act [now Employees ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 4 - Compensation Act] and secondly, the claim was opposed by invoking Section 28 of the Workmen Compensation Act by respondents. It was averred by the appellants that since ex-gratia amount have been released to the respondents-claimants herein, as mentioned in Para 4 of Award therefore, no compensation was payable. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSIONER UNDER WORKMEN/EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT: 4. After completion of pleadings, framing of issues and evidence adduced, Learned Commissioner passed an Award on 12.12.2017, allowing the claim petition of appellants herein. IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 12.12.2017: 5. After due appreciation of the material on record, the Commissioner passed an Award on 12.12.2017 and operative part thereof, reads as under:- “ISSUES No.1 to 4 9. All these issues being interconnected and interlinked are taken up together for discussing to avoid repetition and it is permissible in view of ruling of Hon’ble High Court of H.P “Hiru Ram vs. Mansa Ram” Latest Himachal Law Judgements 2002 (2) (HP) (DB) 872. ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 5 - 11. Husband of deceased Nimmo Devi appeared as PW4 and on oath stated that his wife was working in NREGA in a work being executed by Gram Panchayat Batahan near Hatnala bridge and on 28.03.2009 at about 11.00 a.a a “Peepal” tree had uprooted because of storm and 12 workers working under NREGA including his wife Nimmo Devi were injured and they were removed to CHC Thural from where two seriously injured were referred to CH Palampur from they were referred to Tanda hospital. Stated that police was also informed qua the same and his wife had succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident and her post mortem was got conducted. Stated that his wife used to help in maintaining the family. Stated that his wife was 31 years of age and was rning Rs. 110/- per day and besides this she was also earning Rs. 2000/- per month and some money was paid to him by the respondents. Stated that he be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- from respondents along with Rs.3,00,000/- as penalty alongwith interest @12% per annum. In his cross, he admitted that his wife was working under NREGA. He admitted that he had received Rs.1,00,000/- under MATRI SHAKTI BIMA YOJNA, Rs. 25,000/- under NREGA and Rs. 10,000/- under National Family Benefit Scheme. Admitted that he is also working as labourer. Denied that he is not entitled to any compensation. Denied that death of his wife had not occurred during the course of employment and he has filed false case. 14. PW-3 is Sat Pal Ex. Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Batahan, Sub Tehsil Thural, Tehsil Palampur who stated that in the year 2006 he was Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Batahan and ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 6 - Panchayat was executing work of raising Danga near Hatrnala Nallah under NREGA and Nimmo Devi was also employed for the same. Stated that suddenly a “Peepal” tree had fallen on the workers and Nimmo Devi had succumbed to the injuries in Tanda Hospital. In his cross, he admitted that Rs. 1,35,000/- were paid to the petitioner by Government. 18. Controversy in the case is in a narrow compass. From the reply filed by respondents and cross examine of RW1, it is established that Nimmo Devi was employed as labourer in NREGA on 28.03.2009 and at about 11.00 a.m near Hatnala bridge because of falling of tree she had sustained injuries and had succumbed to the injuries sustained at Tanda hospital. The factum of unfortunate occurrence is also supported by copy of daily diary register Ex.PW2/A. In view of discussions above it is duly established that Nimmo Devi had died because of injuries sustained in an unfortunate incident which took place under employment of respondents. 20. Though, respondents have established through receipts Ex. RW 1/C & Ex.RW1/D that Rs. 25000/- was paid to petitioner no.1 under NREGA, receipt Ex.RW1/D (wrongly exhibited) that Rs.10,000/- was paid to petitioner No.1 under National Family Bima Scheme and receipt Ex. PW1/E that Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to petitioner No.1 under Matri Shakti Bima Yojjna but same cannot effect right of petitioners to claim compensation in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble High Court of H.P in “Ram Dulari vs. H.P State Electricity Board 1 (1987) ACC 199”. Also RW1 has admitted that benefit under Marti Shakti Bima Yojna and National Family Bima Yojna is given to the members ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 7 - of B.P.L and I.R.D.P families. In view of this and ruling supra grants made under other welfare policies by the State Govt cannot come in way of petitioners to claim compensation under the Act. 21. Now comes the question as to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled. It is admitted by RW1 that Nimmo Devi was getting Rs.110/- per day. Though, PW4 has stated that his wife was 31 years of age at the time of her death, however, in Pariwar register Nakal Ex.PW1/A age of Nimmo Devi has been shown as 36 years. In view of this and as stated supra employer can be made liable to pay compensation on the wages paid by him and not for other income. By applying relevant factor on amount of wages paid by the respondents (1650x194.64), amount of compensation should be paid as soon as it falls due, in which respondents failed, the petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on this amount after 30 days of death of Nimmo Devi i.e. from 30.04.2009 in view of her death on 29.03.2009 as reflected in pariwar register nakal Ex.PW1/A. Reliance placed on Sita Ram versus Satvinder Singh and another, Latest HLJ 2008 (H.P.) 1110. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents No.1, 2 & 4 are held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. In view of discussions above, issues No. 1 to 2 are decided in affirmative whereas issues No.3 is decided partly in affirmative and issue No.4 in negative, however in the above noted manner. Issue No.5. 22. There is nothing on record to show as to how the petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, issue is ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 8 - decided in negative. RELIEF 23. In view of my discussions and findings on issues above, petition partly succeeds and is hereby partly allowed and petitioners are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,21,156/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 30.04.2009 till actual realization from respondents No.1, 2 & 4 jointly and severally which shall be distributed/apportioned equally amongst the petitioners. On deposit of the compensation amount by respondents the same be invested in the name of petitioners in the above said ratio by way of FDRs in a nationalized bank. In the facts of the case, the respondents 1, 2 & 4 are burdened with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- however parties to bear their own costs. Memo of costs be prepared File after its due completion be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on this 12th day of December 2017. Sd/- Employee’s Compensation Commissioner(I), Palampur, District Kangra (H.P.)” GROUNDS LAYING CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 12.12.2017: 6. Appellants have assailed the Impugned Award dated 12.12.2017, on the ground, firstly, that Learned Commissioner has wrongly awarded compensation and secondly, the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 were wrongly appreciated and thirdly, since the husband of deceased Nimmo Devi was ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 9 - self-employed therefore, compensation was not claimable and the Impugned Award was untenable; and fourthly, once the ex-gratia stood released to the respondents-claimants therefore, the claim for compensation was not payable and these facts have been ignored by Learned Commissioner while passing the Award and fifthly, the Learned State Counsel contended that deceased Nimmo Devi, was not a workman-employee under the Workmen Compensation Act [now Employees Compensation Act]; and lastly, in terms of Section 28, once the MANREGA was to have overriding effect over other laws therefore, the claim preferred by the claimants and the compensation awarded under the Workmen /Employees Compensation Act by the Commissioner in terms of the Award was erroneous. 7. Heard, Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the appellants and Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Learned Counsel for the respondents. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED: 8. In order to test the legality of Impugned ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 10 - Award dated 12.12.2017, passed by Commissioner, it is necessary to have a recap of the relevant provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, now Employees Compensation Act 1923. 8(i). In this backdrop, the definition of the term “employer” in Section 2 (e) and the definition of the term “workman” in Section 2 (n) of Workmen Compensation Act, reads as under :- “2(e) employer” includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another 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; 2(n) workman means a person, who is- (i) A railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub- divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II; or (i-a) (a) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship, (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft, ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 11 - (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle, (d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India; or (ii) Employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them; 8(ii). In this backdrop, the definition of the term “employee” in Section 2 (dd) and the definition of the term “employer” in Section 2 (e) of the Employees Compensation Act, reads as under :- “2(dd) “employee” means a person, who is- (i). A railway servant as defined in clause (34) of section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), not permanently employed in any administrative district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II; or ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 12 - (ii). a) a master, seaman or other members of the crew of a ship, (b) a captain or other member of the crew of an aircraft, (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle, (d) a person recruited for work abroad by a company and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India; or (iii) Employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and any reference to any employee who has been injured shall, where the employee is dead, include a reference to his dependants or any of them; (e) “employer” includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of [an employee] are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the [employee] has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the [employee] is working for him; ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 13 - (m) "wages", includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a *[employee] towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a *[employee] to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; 3. Employer's liability for compensation.- (1) If personal injury is caused to a employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable – (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the [employee] for a period exceeding three days; (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to- (i) the employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device which he ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 14 - knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of employee, (2) to (5) ....Not Relevant.... 4. Amount of compensation- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) where death results an from the injury: an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased employee multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of one lakh and twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more; (b) where permanent total disablement results from the injury : an amount equal to sixty per cent. of the monthly wages of the injured employee multiplied by the relevant factor; one lakh and twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more; Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount of compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and (b). (c) and (d) .......Not Relevant..... (4) If the injury of the employee results in his death, the employer shall, in addition to the compensation under sub-section (1), deposit with the Commissioner a sum of not less than five thousand rupees for payment of the same to the eldest surviving dependant of the employee towards the expenditure of the funeral of such employee or where the employee did not have a dependant or was not living with his dependant ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 15 - at the time of his death to the person who actually incurred such expenditure.] Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount specified in this sub-section. 4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default- (1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall— (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 16 - direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent, of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed. 8. Distribution of compensation- (1) No payment of compensation in respect of a employee whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as compensation to a woman or a person under a legal disability, shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner, and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be deemed to be a payment of compensation: Provided that, in the case of a deceased employee, an employer may make to any dependant advances on account of compensation of an amount equal to three months' wages of such employee and so much of such amount as does not exceed the compensation payable to that dependant shall be deducted by the Commissioner from such compensation and repaid to the employer. (2) to (8) .....Not relevant.... 17. Contracting out- Any contract or agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby a employee relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 17 - of or in the course of the employment, shall be null and void in so far as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under this Act.” 8(iii). Before analyzing the rival claims and contentions of Learned Counsels, it is necessary to have a recap of the relevant provisions of The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 [referred to as MANREGA] reads as under :- “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (b) "applicant" means the head of a household or any of its other adult members who has applied for employment under the Scheme; (h) "minimum wage", in relation to any area, means the minimum wage fixed by the State Government under section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for agricultural labourers as applicable in that area; (k) "preferred work" means any work which is taken up for implementation on a priority basis under a Scheme; (m) "Programme Officer" means an officer appointed under sub-section (1) of section 15 for implementing the Scheme; (0) "rural area" means any area in a State except those areas covered by any urban local body or a Cantonment Board established or constituted under any law for the time being in force; ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 18 - (r) "unskilled manual work" means any physical work which any adult person is capable of doing without any skill or special training; 3. (1) Save as otherwise provided, the State Government shall, in such rural area in the State as may be notified by the Central Government, provide to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work not less than one hundred days of such work in a financial year in accordance with the Scheme made under this Act. (2) Every person who has done the work given to him under the Scheme shall be entitled to receive wages at the wage rate for each day of work. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the disbursement of daily wages shall be made on a weekly basis or in any case not later than a fortnight after the date on which such work was done. (4) The Central Government or the State Government may, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make provisions for securing work to every adult member of a household under a Scheme for any period beyond the period guaranteed under sub- section (1), as may be expedient. 4. (1) For the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of section 3, every State Government shall, within six months from the date of commencement of this Act, by notification, make a Scheme, for providing not less than one hundred days of guaranteed employment in a financial year to every household in the rural areas covered under the Scheme and whose adult members, by application, volunteer to do unskilled manual work subject to the conditions laid down by or under this Act and in the Scheme; ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 19 - Provided that until any such Scheme is notified by the State Government, the Annual Action Plan or Perspective Plan for the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) or the National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP) whichever is in force in the concerned area immediately before such notification shall be deemed to be the action plan for the Scheme for the purposes of this Act. (2) & (3) ....Not Relevant.... 5. (1) The State Government may, without prejudice to the conditions specified in Schedule II, specify in the Scheme the conditions for providing guaranteed employment under this Act. (2) The persons employed under any Scheme made under this Act shall be entitled to such facilities not less than the minimum facilities specified in Schedule II. 16(1) The Gram Panchayat shall be responsible for identification of the projects in the Gram Panchayat area to be taken up under a Scheme as per the recommendations of the Gram Sabha and the Ward Sabhas and for executing and supervising such works. (2) A Gram Panchayat may take up any project under a Scheme within the area of the Gram Panchayat as may be sanctioned by the Programme Officer. (3) Every Gram Panchayat shall, after considering the recommendations of the Gram Sabha and the Ward Sabhas, prepare a development plan and maintain a shelf of possible works to be taken up under the Scheme as and when demand for work arises. (4) The Gram Panchayat shall forward its proposals for the development projects including the order of ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 20 - priority between different works to the Programme Officer for scrutiny and preliminary approval prior to the commencement of the year in which it is proposed to be executed. (5) The Programme Officer shall allot at least fifty per cent of the works in terms of its cost under a Scheme to be implemented through the Gram Panchayats. (6) The Programme Officer shall supply each Gram Panchayat with- (a) the muster rolls for the works sanctioned to be executed by it; and (b) a list of employment opportunities available elsewhere to the residents of the Gram Panchayat. (7) The Gram Panchayat shall allocate employment opportunities among the applicants and ask them to report for work. (8) The works taken up by a Gram Panchayat under a Scheme shall meet the required technical standards and measurements. 28. The provisions of this Act or the Schemes made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of such law: Provided that where a State enactment exists or is enacted to provide employment guarantee for unskilled manual work to rural households consistent with the provisions of this Act under which the entitlement of the households is not less than and the conditions of employment are not inferior to what is guaranteed under this Act, the State Government shall have the option of implementing its own enactment: Provided further that in such cases the financial assistance shall be paid to the concerned State Government ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 21 - in such manner as shall be determined by the Central Government, which shall not exceed what the State would have been entitled to receive under this Act had a Scheme made under this Act had to be implemented.” 8(iv). Based on the intent/object of MANREGA and Rules and in order to give effect to rural employment guarantee scheme and the mode and manner in which employment was to be accorded, the law makers inserted Section 4 and Schedule-I and Section 5 and Schedule-II thereto prescribing conditions for implementation of guaranteed rural employment, including minimum entitlements of labourers engaged against work(s) by the State/ Central Government, as the case may be. Perusal of Schedule-II details various works, on which employment was to be ensured by stakeholders, including Gram Panchayat concerned, by issuing job cards/muster-rolls and by enumerating various welfare measures admissible to the injured arising out of accident arising during the course of employment. ANALYSIS: 9. Taking into account the material on ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 22 - record and after perusing the original case records this Court is of the considered view, that the Impugned Award dated 12.12.2017, in Re: Jeet Singh and Others vs Deputy Commissioner, Kangra and Others, does not call for any interference, for the following reasons :- 9(i). First contention of Learned State Counsel that Impugned Award dated 12.12.2017, has been wrongly passed by awarding compensation to the respondents-claimants. The above contention of Learned State Counsel is without any force, for the reason, that the Award dated 12.12.2017, has been passed by Commissioner after due appreciation of pleadings and due appreciation of evidence and by taking into account the case law relied upon by the parties. Learned State Counsel has not been able to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the Impugned Award dated 12.12.2017 and in these circumstances, the first contention of Learned State Counsel is misconceived and is rejected. 10. Second contention of Learned State Counsel ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 23 - is that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 has been wrongly appreciated by the Commissioner while passing the award. The above contention of the appellants- Learned State Counsel is without merit, for the reason, that a perusal of the statement of PW-3 [Satpal], who is the Ex-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Batahan, Sub-Tehsil Thural, Tehsil Palampur, has been elaborately discussed in Para 14 of the Impugned Award. Moreover, the statement of PW-3 negativates the contention of appellants, for the reason, that PW-3 has specifically deposed that deceased Nimmo-Devi was employed in MANREGA and it was during the course of employment and while she was employed and was executing the work of raising a Danga {retaining wall} near Hatnala Bridge, that a Peepal Tree fell on the workers on the site including Nimmo Devi. Due to this, aforesaid Nimmo Devi and others were seriously injured but Nimmo Devi succumbed to injuries in the hospital {Dr. RPGMC&H] at Tanda. Deposition of PW-3, PW-4 and RW-I is enough to ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 24 - uphold the impugned Award, who have testified in one voice that the deceased Nimmo Devi, was employed under MANREGA, when she got injured on 28.3.2009 and later succumbed to injuries during the course of employment stands duly proved and these facts were also corroborated in proceedings before the Commissioner. In these circumstances, the contention that the testimony of PW-3 is not trustworthy is wholly misconceived and is turned down. 10(i). The contention of Learned State Counsel qua PW-4 is also without any substance for the reason, that scanning of deposition of PW-4, Jeet Ram, supports the incident that his wife-deceased Nimmo Devi had been working in MANREGA for some time. The statement of PW-4 Jeet Singh, is further corroborated by the deposition of PW-3 Ex-Pradhan Satpal, that on 28.03.2009, Jeet Singh’s wife Nimmo Devi, succumbed to injuries along with 12 other labourers, while working in Hatnala Bridge on fateful day. PW-4 further deposed that after the incident, the injured including his wife, ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 25 - deceased-Nimmo Devi was taken for treatment to Thural and thereafter at Medical College at Tanda, where Nimmo Devi died and due to her death, the family sustained loss of income as well as dependency and claimants-respondents are entitled for compensation, notwithstanding the fact that ex- gratia amount(s) was released to them. In the above backdrop, the second contention of the Learned State Counsel is meritless and same is accordingly rejected. 11. Third contention of Learned State Counsel is that the husband of deceased Nimmo Devi i.e. Respondent-Claimant no 1 [PW4-Jeet Singh] is self-employed and the Impugned Award granting compensation is bad and unsustainable. The above contention of Learned State Counsel has been advanced only to be disallowed, for the reason, that firstly, Respondents-Claimants have set up a case, in Para 6 of the Claim Petition before the Commissioner by asserting that Respondents-Claimant(s) were dependant on the earnings of deceased, who was supporting them ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 26 - but for the injury and resultant death which has forced them to starvation ; and secondly, in reply to the claim petition, the appellants have not denied these averments; and thirdly, even PW-4, Jeet Ram has deposed that his deceased wife, Nimmo Devi used to support the family from her earnings {be it wholly or in part} and due to her death, they have suffered loss in dependency ; and fourthly, the Respondents-Claimants having suffered loss in dependency had a right to claim compensation under statutory enactments; and fifthly, merely because respondent no 1-Jeet Ram was self-employed cannot be a ground to deny or take away the right of the Respondents- Claimants for compensation, being the dependants of deceased, who suffered injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment resulting in death, which had led to resultant loss in dependency and therefore, the Commissioner had validly awarded compensation to Respondents- Claimants under the Employees Compensation Act and sixthly, a purposive interpretation needs to ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 27 - be given to a beneficial legislation, including the Employees Compensation Act by giving protection to employees/workmen from hardships and to ensure increased sense of security by making the employers’ liability for compensation more wider so that adequate protection was extended to the workmen (employees) who sustain injuries arising out of accident arising out of and during the course of employment ; and seventhly, the plea set-up by the State Authorities-appellants that since Respondent No-1-Claimant was self-employed cannot be permitted to be invoked so as to defeat the object of the Employees Compensation Act ; and eighthly, even the Learned State Counsel has not been able to point out any provision either in Employees Compensation Act or the MANREGA Act which disentitles the respondents -claimants of deceased-Nimmo Devi from claiming compensation; and lastly, the contention of the Appellants-State Authorities that since Respondent No 1 {Jeet Ram, being the husband of deceased} was self-employed and therefore, the compensation ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 28 - could not be awarded shall certainly amount to defeating the object of an enactment, which seeks to provide not only an adequate sense of security to an employee during employment and at the same time ensures compensation to the dependants for loss in dependency due to death of Nimmo Devi, which results from the injury arising out of an accident during the course of employment. Permitting the appellants herein to take such a plea shall render the legal right and entitlement of dependants-claimants 1 to 5 for compensation under Sections 3, 4 and 5 and other provisions of the Workmen/Employees Compensation Act as redundant and nugatory, which is impermissible. Thus, the third contention of the Learned State Counsel is rejected and the Award dated 12.12.2017 allowing compensation to Respondents-Claimants is justified so as to give effect to the intent and mandate of the Act and thus the Award is upheld. 12. Fourth contention of Learned State Counsel is that, in terms of the Award dated 12.12.2017, ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 29 - ex-gratia amount(s) of Rs. 1,35,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Thirty-Five Thousand], have been paid to respondents-claimants and therefore, compensation could not have been awarded in the instant case. The above contention of Learned State Counsel is devoid of any merit, for the reason, that ‘ex-gratia payment’ itself implies that such amount or payment is made out of grace and as a matter of favor or indulgence or in a gratuitous manner. Payment of ex-gratia, is an amount, given as a favor but without any legal consideration. In order to test the contention of Learned Counsel for appellants, it is necessary to refer to the definition of the term “ex-gratia” and “ex-gratia payments”, contained in the Black’s Law Dictionary [6th edition], which reads as under :- “Ex gratia- Out of grace; as a matter of grace, favor, or indulgence; gratuitous. A term applied to anything accorded as a favor; as distinguished from what which may be demanded ex debito, as a matter of right. Ex gratia payment- Payment made by ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 30 - one who recognizes no legal obligation to pay but who makes payment to avoid greater expense as in the case of a settlement by an insurance company to avoid costs of suit. A payment without legal consideration.” Thus, once the intent behind ex-gratia or ex-gratia payment is clear, unambiguous, that such “ex-gratia payment is extended as a matter of grace and not as a legal entitlement or compensation,” then, even if, the appellants have granted ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Thirty-Five Thousand], as detailed in Para 4 of the Impugned Award dated 12.12.2017, then also, the release of ex-gratia cannot be a ground to deprive the respondents-claimants of the legal entitlements of compensation flowing from the statutory enactment i.e. Workmen Compensation Act [now Employees Compensation Act 1923, as in the instant case. Further, it is an admitted case that deceased [Nimmo Devi] was employed by the Gram Panchayat Batahan, a legal entity incorporated under Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act and therefore, the claim for compensation accruing under ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 31 - Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Employees Compensation Act cannot be defeated or scuttled only on the plea, that ex-gratia stands released under the MANREGA or Scheme issued thereunder. The legal entitlement and resultant claim of the dependants for compensation under the beneficial enactments, including the Employees Compensation Act cannot be either curtailed or restricted or taken away, merely on the plea that ex-gratia amount stands released to the dependants-claimants, when, the injury sustained leading to death was admittedly, caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment with Gram Panchayat {an incorporated body} for execution of works under MANREGA. In these circumstances, right of the dependents-Respondents for compensation under the applicable enactment {WCA/ECA} carries weight and the contention of Learned State Counsel cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny and therefore, the same is turned down. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Learned Commissioner in the Impugned Award does not suffer from any infirmity ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 32 - or perversity. 13. Fifth contention of Learned Counsel for the appellants, is that the deceased Nimmo Devi, was employed in MGNREGA and she does not falls within the ambit of the terms “workman’ or “employee’ under the Workmen Compensation Act or the Employees Compensation Act 1923 and therefore, the Impugned Award is not sustainable. The above contention of Learned State Counsel, has no foundation, for the reason, that definition of the term ‘workman” or the terms ‘employee’ covers the different categories of persons employed as enumerated sub section (i) & (ii) of Section 2 (n) of the Workmen Compensation Act which corresponds to sub-section (i), (ii) or (iii) in Section 2(dd) of the Employees Compensation Act. Perusal of the term ‘workman” or “employee” in aforesaid Sections and Schedule-II thereto covers a person not in permanent employment but is employed in any such capacity as in Schedule-II, whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 33 - whether such contract is expressed or implied oral or in writing. Further, definition clause of this Act expressly excludes or ousts those persons from its purview of the Employees Compensation Act, who work in capacity of a member of Armed Forces of the Union and who sustain injury or who die during the course of service in Armed Forces. Once the deceased-Nimmo Devi did not fall within the ouster Clause within the meaning of term “workman” or “employee” under Workmen Compensation Act or Employees Compensation Act. Even a person, who employed in any capacity in terms of Section 2 in any work as enumerated in Schedule-II shall be an employee. Even a reference to Category A to D of the Schedule to MANREGA reveals that the works which are performable under MANREGA have semblance with the works performable by persons in employment under Schedule-II of Employees Compensation Act. In order to entitle a workman or an employee for compensation against an employer, primarily three ingredients are to be satisfied i.e. workman ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 34 - and employer relationship; workman must suffer personal injury in an accident; and that accident must arise out of and in the course of his employment. Even, MGNREGA does not exclude a person, being the head of household or any other adult member who had applied for and was granted employment by issuing a job card/muster -roll for performing works in a Gram Panchayat concerned for doing manual unskilled work {be it for not less than 100 days} with the object of creating productive assets, strengthen livelihood, ensure social inclusion proactively and strengthen Panchayati Raj Institutions through work then, nomenclature and duration of such employment under MANREGA cannot be the basis for ousting or excluding the dependants-claimants of deceased Nimmo Devi, from claiming compensation under the Employees Compensation Act. Moreover, in facts of instant case, once all three primary ingredients i.e. workman and employer relationship ; workman must suffer personal injury in an accident; and ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 35 - that accident must arise out of and in the course of employment were duly satisfied and were duly proved before the Learned Commissioner and deceased- Nimmo Devi did not fall within the Exclusion Clause of any of these enactments {the Workmen/Employees Compensation Act} coupled with the fact that there was no express exclusion or ouster of those persons who employed in Gram Panchayats under MANREGA Act with the added feature that once the deceased-Nimmo Devi was employed against the works performable- executable under MANREGA by legal entity/duly incorporated body i.e. Gram Panchayat and these works are pari-materia to the works, performable by an “workman” under Workmen Compensation Act or employee” under the Employees Compensation Act therefore, in terms of the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in Commanding Officer, Railway protection Special Force, Mumbai vs Bhavnaben Dinsbhai Bhabhor & Ors, 2023 (13) SCALE 183 {Paras 53, 58 & 60} therefore, the claim for compensation by Respondents-Claimants ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 36 - herein and the compensation awarded by Learned Commissioner in the Award, does not call for any inference. 14. Last contention of the Learned State Counsel is that Section 28 of MANREGA, provides that provisions of the MANREGA Act or Schemes shall have overriding effect over any other law and therefore, no compensation could have been awarded and the Impugned Award was bad in Law. The above contention of Learned State Counsel cannot hold the ground, for the reason that Section 28 of MANREGA, nowhere expressly restricts or takes away the rights of respondents -claimants from claiming compensation flowing from Employees Compensation Act 1923. Even reliance placed on Section 28 of MANREGA is misplaced when, there is no express provision in MANREGA Act or Scheme or instrument issued thereunder, which bars, restricts, curtails, takes away or negates the right of respondents-claimants herein from claiming compensation in law, including the ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 37 - Employees Compensation Act, in case injury was caused resulting in death during employment under MANREGA. Nothing has been pointed out before the Commissioner and even during this Appeal {FAO} that MGNREGA Act or its Scheme has expressly ousted the persons employed in Gram Panchayats under the MANREGA Act/Scheme from being an employee and also by ousting the dependants from claiming compensation. Restrictive meaning cannot be given to beneficial legislations be it MANREGA and/or Employees Compensation Act. Notably, an enactment/scheme or instrument which negates, denies or takes away the protection, safeguards, remedial measures and legal entitlement of compensation in law [under the Employees Compensation Act] shall certainly amount to defeating the object of beneficial legislation i.e. Employees Compensation Act. Attempt made by the Learned State Counsel to give a restrictive interpretation shall defeat and frustrate the object /intent and shall tantamount to rendering the scope, applicability and the legal entitlement for ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 38 - compensation under Section 4 and 8 of Employees Compensation Act redundant and negatory. Right and legal entitlement of dependants-claimants for compensation cannot be brushed aside. Even, if Item No. 27 in Schedule-II of MANREGA provides for giving ex-gratia, which in instant case stands released then also, once the MANREGA nowhere expressly ousts, curtails, takes away the right of dependants for compensation, in case an employee suffers injury resulting in death, as in case of deceased-Nimmo Devi, then, the claim for compensation under another beneficial legislation [i.e. The Employees Compensation Act] was valid, tenable and was rightly allowed in favor of the Respondents-claimants, in the instant case. Once the deceased-Nimmo Devi had died due to an accident, arising from an accident during the course of her employment in Gram Panchayat, then, in absence of any such ouster provision or clause in MANREGA, disentitling the persons employed on its work, then the compensation awarded by Learned Commissioner in terms of ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 39 - the Impugned Award does not suffer from any illegality. CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS-CLAIMANTS: 15. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondents-Claimants, supports the Impugned Award dated 12.12.2017. While supporting the Award, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents- Claimants, places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in 1987 STPL 96 HP[I(1987) ACC 199=1987 ACJ 258], titled as Ram Dulari vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Shimla and Another, [FAO No.135 of 1986 decided on 26.09.1986] wherein, the question, as to whether ex-gratia payment could be made the basis for depriving the legal heirs-claimants of the legal entitlements, flowing by way of compensation under an enactment i.e. Employees Compensation Act, has been answered by this Court in the following terms :- 14. In the last place, the respondents could not be regarded as having acted bonafide in making a default in making the provisional payment or the payment of the compensation under the Act as soon as ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 40 - it fell due or within one month thereafter on the ground that ex-gratia payment in the sum of Rs. 14,500/- had been made and employment was offered to the sister of the deceased workman. The respondents are not private employers but an agency or instrumentality of the State. They are a State enterprise which in a truly welfare State is charged with the social consciousness and responsibility towards the citizens and, more particularly, towards its employees. A public sector enterprise is expected to be a model employer and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the respondents could not possible have declined to accept the liability for compensation and they cannot justifiably take shelter behind the plea of entertaining a genuine belief that the factum of the ex-gratia payment together with the employment of the sister of the deceased (which was a benefit computable in terms of money) would be regarded as provisional payment made under Sub- section (2) of Section 4-A of the Act or as an extenuating circumstance while considering the default in making the payment due in accordance with law. A bare reading of Sub section (2) shows that the provisional payment is to be made in cases where the employer does not accept the liability to the extent claimed but partially accepts the same. In the present case, as earlier pointed out, the liability was not accepted in the early stages of the present proceedings precisely on the ground that such payment and employment were in lieu of the statutory compensation payable under the Act. Against the background of the aforesaid stand, it does not lie in the month of the respondents to urge that the ex-gratia payment and employment were in the nature of provisional payment to the extent of the admitted liability for ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 41 - compensation. Besides, although the liability came to be admitted at the subsequent stage, the compensation due in accordance with law was not paid or deposited immediately and it was deposited only ten days before Commissioner's impugned decision was rendered. Under the circumstances aforementioned, can the respondents be heard to plead that the default was on account of any bonafide belief or that there are any extenuating circumstances? 15. There are other factors and considerations as well which militate against such a plea. First, the learned Counsel for the respondents has fairly stated to the Court that the benefit of ex-gratia payment is available to the heirs of an employee who dies while in service irrespective of whether the death was the result of a personal injury caused to a workman arising out of and in the course of his employment. It would thus appear that the said payment has no nexus whatsoever with the compensation which was payable under the provisions of the Act and that it would have been made to the heir(s) of the deceased workman even if he had not died as a result of the injury sustained by him by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The circumstances that such payment was made cannot, therefore, be pressed into service and it cannot be regarded as payment of compensation under the Act or as provisional payment under Sub- section (2) of Section 4-A. Secondly, Section 8 prohibits the payment of compensation in respect of a workman, whose injury has resulted in death, to be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner and no such payment made directly by an employer is deemed to be a payment of ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 42 - compensation. The respondents must be attributed to knowledge of this statutory provision and they cannot be, therefore, heard to say that the ex-gratia payment of Rs. 14,500/- is the payment of compensation due under the Act or the part payment of such compensation which must enter into consideration while determining the liability, if any, arising under Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A. Thirdly, in para 5 of the reply submitted by the respondents before the Commissioner, there is a reference of the instructions of the respondent- Board that payment of the ex-gratia payment and the employment to be offered to the legal heir(s) of the deceased workman are in lieu of the statutory compensation under the Act and that only those will be entitled to receive such benefit who have not made or are not likely to make such a claim under the Act, The resistance to the claim for compensation in the initial stages on the strength of those instructions was wholly untenable and misconceived. The Act is a legislative enactment conformable to the Directive Principles of State policy enshrined in Articles 39(a), 41, 42, 43 and 46 of the Constitution. Its provisions, which are based on public policy, could not have been waived by the heir(s) of the deceased and any agreement between her/them and the respondents, which has the effect of defeating those provisions, must be regarded as void being opposed to public policy. Apart from this general principle of law, which is well established, there is in Section 17 of the Act a clear prohibition against contracting out and, accordingly, any contract or agreement whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 43 - the course of the employment is to be treated as null and void insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compensation under the Act. The respondents, being enlightened and resourceful employers, could not have been unaware of this settled position of law and they are wholly unjustified in pleading that they were under the genuine belief that the payment of the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 14,500/- and the employment of a sister of the deceased would protect them from any claim for compensation under the Act or relieve them from the liability arising under Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A. Indeed, the Court would like to observe that it is high time that the respondents withdrew the instructions dated July 10, 1984 and September 4, 1984 insofar as they run counter to the injunction contained in Section 17 of the Act. 18. The question then is as to what penalty should be ordered to be recovered from the respondents in the factual matrix of this case. The lame factors and considerations are again relevant while considering this question. The respondents are not private employers but public sector employers. They are an agency or instrumentality of the State. They are expected to be model employers while dealing with their workman, it is their duty to implement the beneficent provisions of the Act in their true letter and spirit and to make payment of the compensation as soon as it falls due. In view of the fact that the basic requirement, namely, the death having occurred as a result of the injury sustained in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, was never in dispute in the present case, it was the duty and obligation of the respondents to pay ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 44 - the compensation due under the Act as soon as it fell due. Both, the statutory provisions and the case law on the subject, are clear and specific in regard to the precise point of time when the payment is required to be made. In the reply to the application for review, the appellant had drawn their specific attention thereto. Still however, as found earlier, the liability was not admitted initially and no payment of compensation was made until ten days before the fresh award was announced in the review proceedings, although they were called upon by the Commissioner to deposit the compensation way back in January 1995 when the notice under Section 10-A was issued. All sorts of objections, one of which was based on a contract which was apparently void, were set up and pleaded in support of the denial of liability as well as in justification for the delay. I do not think under such circumstances a public sector employer can be relieved of the rigours of the provision relating to the recovery of penalty upto the maximum extent. I, therefore, regard this to be a lit and proper case where the respondents should be directed to pay penalty to the extent of 50% of the amount of statutory compensation. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the appellant simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the sum of Rs. 88,548/-, which has been determined as the statutory compensation payable to her in accordance with law, from the date of the accident till the date of deposit. In addition, a sum of Rs. 44,274/- is directed to be recovered from the respondents by way of penalty and paid to the appellant. The respondents will deposit in the Registry of this Court within a ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 45 - period of two weeks from the date of the delivery of a certified copy of this judgment the amount becoming due and payable as a result of this decision. Upon the deposit being made accordingly, the case will be listed before the Registrar for settling the usual draft order of investment. The appellant is also entitled to the costs of this appeal which are quantified at Rs. 350/-. Tin costs awarded accordingly will also be deposited in the Registry of this Court along with the amount of interest and penalty. 15(i). While dealing with the right for compensation under Employees Compensation Act in relation to persons employed under MANREGA, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed compensation in FAO No.149 of 2016, titled as Secretary, Rural Development Department and others versus Jethi Devi, decided on 04.04.2016 in the following terms: 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent- workman (hereinafter referred to as the “workman”) was employed as labourer in the MGNREGA in the Gram Panchayat, Bahwa, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi by the appellants. On 12.6.2009 at about 3.00 P.M. at village Kalai, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, respondent was working as a labourer on the road. It was being constructed by the appellants. All of a sudden, heavy stone and debris fell down upon the respondent. She sustained injuries in her left ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 46 - leg and other parts of the body. She was taken to CHC, Gohar, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi. She was given medical aid and thereafter was referred to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. She remained under treatment in Zonal Hospital, Mandi for about 16 days. Thereafter, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. She remained under treatment in PGI, Chandigarh for 28 days. She was operated upon. She was again admitted in the Zonal Hospital, Mandi and remained under treatment for about three months. Iron plates were inserted in the left leg of the respondent and she was also advised for periodical check up for her injuries. She has spent Rs. 70,000/- for her treatment. She used to get Rs. 3,000/- per month as wages from the appellants. She was 55 years old at the time of accident. Notice was served upon the appellants. However, the matter was not settled. It is in these circumstances petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs. ten lakhs. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the petition was not maintainable before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation in view of various provisions of MGNREGA scheme, more particularly, notification dated 9.11.2010. The Commissioner for EmployeesCompensation has misread oral as well as documentary evidence. She was only entitled to compensation for medical expenses. 11. DW-1 Ravinder Kumar has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that respondent was working as a labourerunder their Department. Volunteered that she was working in MGNREGA. He has also admitted that after accident, respondent remained ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 47 - admitted in the hospital. Volunteered that the Department has paid the bills of the medicine produced by her. He also admitted that no compensation was paid to the respondent. As per notification of the Central Government, if MGNREGA worker sustains injuries while working, in that case, expenses of medicines was to be paid by the Government and in case of death of person, Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid. The notification dated 9.11.2010 did not debar the workman to file claim petition under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. 12. It is not in dispute that respondent has received injury on her leg while working with the appellants. The disability was assessed at 40%. The respondent was an employee as per Schedule 2 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The respondent was employee since she was engaged in the construction/maintenance/ repair of the road. She was working on 12.6.2009 for the construction of road in village Kalai. The respondent has the necessary locus standi to file the petition before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation as per the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The provisions of MGNREGA did not debar the respondent to file claim petition before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. She has only been paid ex-gratia payment of Rs. 35,444/- for buying medicine. Fact of the matter is that she has received injury and has become 40% permanent disable. Medical certificate Ex.PW-4/A has duly been proved by PW-4 Dr. Parveen Thakur. Monthly income of the respondent has rightly been assessed and correct factor has been applied while awarding a sum of Rs. 4,02,613.2 as compensation to the respondent. The Commissioner for ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 48 - Employees Compensation has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment rendered by him.” 15(ii). Learned Counsel for the Respondents- Claimants submits that reference to Section 17 of the Employees Compensation Act, supports the case of the Respondents-Claimants, for the reason, that the intent of Section 17, is that, a legal right and entitlement for compensation, which had accrued under a beneficial legislation cannot be extinguished on the basis of any contract or agreement. If any contract or agreement exists, then the same shall be null and void for all purposes. In this backdrop, contentions of Learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants have force, which was rightly appreciated by the Learned Commissioner leading to the passing of the Award, entitling the Respondents-Claimants for compensation does not warrants any interference. 16. The upshot of the above analysis is that the Impugned Award dated 12.12.2017, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity ( 2025:HHC:15938 ) - 49 - and the same is accordingly upheld. 17. No other point was pressed. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 18. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is devoid of any merit, in the following terms:- (i) Present Appeal i.e. FAO[ECA] No. 387 of 2018, is dismissed. (ii) Impugned Award dated 12.12.2017, passed by Learned Commissioner, under Employees Compensation Act 1923, in RBTWCA No. 23/11/2010 is upheld; (iii) Appellants-State Authorities No(s) 1, 2 & 4 herein, are directed to implement the Award dated 12.12.2017 within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the downloaded /certified copy of this judgment; (iv) Parties to bear respective cost(s). In aforesaid terms, instant appeal is dismissed and all pending applications are also disposed of accordingly. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge January 04, 2025 (Chiranjeev)