Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Supreme Court Affirms Applicability of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 to Railway Protection Force (RPF) Members

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision delivered on September 26, 2023, a bench comprising Hon'ble Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra ruled on a crucial matter regarding the applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, to members of the Railway Protection Force (RPF). The judgment affirmed the applicability of the 1923 Act to RPF members.

The central issue before the bench was whether provisions of the 1923 Act apply to a member of the RPF. After a thorough examination of the relevant statutes and legal provisions, the court concluded that there was no clear legislative intent to exclude members of the RPF from the benefits of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The court's observation on this matter was clear: "Whether provisions of the 1923 Act apply to a member of the RPF."

Additionally, the judgment considered the availability of an alternative remedy under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. The court noted that Section 128 of the 1989 Act expressly saved the right to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, the existence of an alternative remedy did not bar a claim under the 1923 Act.

This landmark decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for members of the RPF and their entitlement to compensation in case of injuries or accidents during the course of their duties. The ruling provides clarity on the legal framework surrounding compensation for RPF personnel.

The case, which involved a comprehensive analysis of statutory provisions and constitutional principles, referred to relevant precedents, including the 1989 Supreme Court case of "Ramesh Birch and others v. Union of India and others."

The judgment's outcome brings clarity and relief to members of the RPF and underscores the importance of a fair and equitable compensation system for all railway personnel, in line with the principles of justice and welfare.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2023

COMMANDING OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL FORCE, MUMBAI  vs  BHAVNABEN DINSHBHAI

BHABHOR & OTHERS 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/26-Sep-2023_CO_RPSF_Mumbai_Vs_Bhavnaben.pdf"]

Latest Legal News