Nearly three decades after her husband died in a tractor accident, a woman in Punjab has won compensation after the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a 1998 dismissal of her claim and held that a father-son relationship does not bar a valid employer-employee arrangement.
Jasbir Singh, 27, died in August 1996 while returning from repairing a planter on his employer’s instructions. His widow, Kashmir Kaur, and their young child were left without any financial support. On January 15, the high court awarded compensation of Rs 4,27,140 along with interest and penalty.
Jasbir was earning Rs 2,300 per month as a tractor driver for Simar Chand, a retired government employee who owned the tractor and was also his father. The family had been living separately since July 1993. Chand supported the claim and admitted in writing that his son was employed by him.
Oriental Insurance Company opposed the claim, alleging collusion and arguing that no genuine employer-employee relationship could exist between a father and son.
In May 1998, the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner at Hoshiarpur dismissed the claim, relying primarily on the testimony of an eyewitness, Paramjit Singh. During cross-examination, Paramjit accepted a suggestion that the tractor belonged to the family and that Jasbir was not an employee. The commissioner treated this admission as conclusive.
Kashmir Kaur filed an appeal later that year. The matter remained pending in the high court for nearly 28 years.
Justice Pankaj Jain found fault with the commissioner’s reasoning and ruled, “This court finds that the commissioner erred in relying upon a suggestion admitted by AW1, who is a stranger to the affairs between the deceased and respondent No. 2, to hold that there was no employee-employer relationship between the parties,” the judge observed.
Story continues below this ad
The court held that blood relations alone cannot negate employment and relied on an earlier coordinate bench ruling, which stated, “Merely because the plea taken was that the father was the employer would not be a ground as such to come to any implied conclusion that the father cannot employ the son.”
Justice Jain also referred to Section 2(1)(dd)(iii) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, which recognises contracts of employment that may be expressed or implied, written or oral. The record showed that Jasbir had no other occupation and had previously worked as a tractor driver for another employer.
Terming the earlier findings perverse, the court held: “Accordingly, it is held that the deceased Jasbir Singh lost his life in an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment as a driver on tractor bearing No. PB07-D-5592 owned by respondent No. 2.”
The compensation was calculated at Rs 4,27,140 using the age factor of 213.57 and 50 per cent of the deemed monthly wages of Rs 4,000. The amount carries 12 per cent annual interest from 30 days after the accident, along with a 35 per cent penalty carrying 7 per cent interest.
