Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court Contempt | Power to Punish Carries Within It the Power to Forgive: Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Term for Director Who Criticised Judges Over Stray Dog Orders Seizure and Attachment Are Not Twins: Supreme Court Holds Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts in PC Act Cases Using CrPC Section 102 IBC | Pre-Existing Dispute Must Be Real, Not Moonshine: Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Proceedings, Says Admission Cannot Be Rejected Based on Spurious Defence Summons Under FEMA Are Civil in Nature – Section 160 CrPC Has No Role to Play: Delhi High Court Denies Exemption to Woman Petitioner from Personal Appearance Before ED Clear Admission in Ledger Is Sufficient for Summary Judgment: Delhi High Court Decrees ₹16.77 Cr in Favour of MSME Supplier Mere Allegation Under SC/ST Act Doesn’t Bar Bail When No Public Abuse Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Caste Atrocity Case Consent Of Girl Aged Above 16 Is Legally Valid Under Pre-2013 Law: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction Insurer Entitled to Recover Compensation from Owner When Driver Has No Licence or Fake Licence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies ‘Pay and Recover’ Doctrine Courts Cannot Rewrite Contracts Where Parties Have Failed to Clearly Define Property Terms: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Even Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled Without Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Mass Termination Of Absorbed University Staff Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’

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