The Supreme Court said that Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel can be considered as workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. They can claim compensation for injuries sustained while on duty, even though the RPF is an armed force of the Central Government.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Manoj Mishra rejected an appeal filed by a commanding officer of the Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) challenging a 2016 order of the Gujarat High Court.

“..in our considered view, despite declaring RPF as an armed force of the Union, the legislative intent was not there to exclude its members or their heirs from the benefits of compensation payable under the 1923 Act or the 1989 Act,” 

The High Court had upheld the compensation order issued by the Employees' Compensation Commissioner to the family members of the constable who was martyred while on duty. Justice Mishra wrote the judgment from the bench.

The bench framed two questions for consideration including whether an RPF constable could be considered a workman under the 1923 law even though he was a member of the Central Armed Forces by virtue of the Railway Protection Force Act 1957 .

The bench, after considering various provisions and Acts, said that in our view, despite the declaration of RPF as an armed force of the Centre, its members or their successors are not entitled to the benefits of compensation payable under the Act of 1923 or the Railways Act, 1989.

There was no legislative intention to exclude. The Supreme Court rejected the RPF's argument that the compensation claim of the heirs of the deceased constable was not acceptable.

Since the definition of a ’Railway Servant’ includes a member of the RPF under the Railways Act, 1989, and since a railway servant continued to be a workman as per Section 2 of the 1923 Act, the provisions of the 1923 Act would to apply to a member of the RPF, as he does not belong to any of the categories specified in Schedule II of the 1923 Act. The Apex Court also observed that there was nothing in the Railways Act, to exclude the applicability of the 1923 Act on a railway servant. Additionally, Section 128 of the Railways Act makes it clear that right of any person to claim compensation under Section 124 or Section 124-A of the 1989 Act shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the 1923 Act, the Court observed.

Section 19 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, which was amended in 1985, and Section 3 of the Act designating RPF as a Union armed force, did not include any provisions exempting the applicability of the 1923 Act. However, amendments made to Section 10 of the 1957 Act explicitly classified every RPF member as a railway employee for all practical purposes, except for Chapter VIA of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which deals with regulations on duty hours and related matters, as noted by the Supreme Court.

“…though Section 19 of the 1957 Act declared that nothing contained in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Factories Act, 1948 or any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial dispute in force in a State shall apply to members of the Force (RPF), there is no exclusion of the applicability of the provisions of the 1923 Act,” the Court reasoned.

Case Title: Commanding Officer, Railway Protection Special Force, Mumbai V. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor

Click Here to Read/Download the Judgement