Humanitarian help to injured worker can’t prove employer-employee relationship: Rajasthan High Court sets aside compensation award

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a compensation award of over Rs 3.7 lakh under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, holding that the act of an alleged employer in taking an injured man to hospital on humanitarian grounds cannot be the basis to assume an employer-employee relationship, which is the first basic requirement for maintaining a claim under the Act.

Justice Ravi Chirania, deciding cross appeals filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and claimant Shanti Devi against a common judgment of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Sikar, held that the claimant had completely failed to prove the employment of the deceased by any documentary or other cogent evidence.

Rejecting the inference of employment drawn from the conduct of the bus owner, the Court observed:

“In the society, many a times people extend their support and help to the people in need around them on humanitarian grounds, however, those acts cannot be the basis to assume relationship of employer and employee.”

Shanti Devi had filed a claim petition stating that her son Rakesh, aged 28 years, was employed as a Khalasi (helper) on a bus owned by Padam Chand Jain and operated by Jain Travels, Sikar, on a salary of Rs 4,000 per month. On the night of 07.05.2005, while on duty, he slept on the roof of the bus to guard it and was found seriously injured near the vehicle the next morning. He was taken to hospital in Sikar, referred to Jaipur, and died during treatment.

By judgment dated 02.04.2008, the Commissioner allowed the claim and directed the insurance company, the owner and the operator to jointly and severally pay Rs 3,70,632 as compensation along with Rs 2,500 towards funeral expenses, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the accident. The insurance company challenged the award under Section 30 of the Act of 1923, while Shanti Devi filed a connected appeal seeking enhancement.

Mr. Pritam Bijlani, appearing for the insurance company, contended that no documentary proof of employment such as a salary register or attendance record was produced, and that the Commissioner had erroneously relied on the police report and the testimony of the claimant and two witnesses. He further argued that interest, in any case, could not run from the date of the accident under Section 4A(3) where the employer had denied liability from the beginning.

Mr. Avinash Fenin, appearing for Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat for the claimant, defended the award, submitting that the testimonies of the claimant and witnesses Mukund Singh and Sukhveer Singh, supported by the police report, were sufficient, and that the act of taking the deceased to hospital was an acknowledgement of liability. Mr. Tanmay Dhand, for the owner and operator, denied the employment altogether, terming the claim an attempt to extort money.

The Court noted that none of the three witnesses could establish the employer-employee relationship by documentary or other cogent evidence, and that although the claimant stated her son had worked with the owner for 10-12 years, no co-worker from that period came forward to support the claim. It held:

“Just because the respondent No. 2- Padam Chand Jain (also the owner of Respondent No. 3) took the deceased to hospital on humanitarian ground, informed the claimant’s mother and provided some initial medical help, his act cannot be treated/considered a reason/basis to assume the employment of deceased.”

Holding that a claim under the Act of 1923 can only be filed where an employer-employee relationship exists, the Court concluded that the Commissioner committed an error in law in allowing the claim on self-assumption. The insurance company’s appeal was allowed and the judgment dated 02.04.2008 quashed and set aside; Shanti Devi’s appeal for enhancement was consequently dismissed. The Court directed the Commissioner to refund 50% of the deposited amount lying with it to the insurance company, and directed the claimant to return the 50% already disbursed to her within 60 days. The judgment was pronounced on 01.06.2026.

Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Shanti Devi & Ors (with connected appeal)

Case No.: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3268/2008 with S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2546/2008

Counsel for appellant (Insurance Company): Mr. Pritam Bijlani

Counsel for respondent-claimant: Mr. Avinash Fenin for Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat

Counsel for owner and operator: Mr. Tanmay Dhand

Click here to read/download judgment