Railways Liable to Compensate Contract Labourer Killed While Saving Woman from Oncoming Train; Absence of Appointment Letter Does Not Defeat Claim Under Employees’ Compensation Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Union of India v. Harbans Lal and Others
Date of Judgment: 16.10.2026
Citation: FAO-7485-2015
Bench: Justice Harkesh Manuja
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a principal employer cannot evade liability under Section 12 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, merely because the deceased workman was engaged through a contractor and no formal appointment letter or contractual document was produced. Employment in compensation proceedings is to be established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, and a workman cannot invariably be expected to possess documents concerning the arrangement between the principal employer and contractor.
The Court further held that an employee’s attempt to save another person from harm while performing assigned duties does not take the resulting accident outside the course of employment. Under Section 30 of the Act, interference with the Commissioner’s findings is permissible only where a substantial question of law arises, including findings suffering from perversity or legal error.
Summary: The dispute arose from the death of a 25-year-old loader, Rakesh Kumar, who was carrying iron pipes at platform No. 5 of Amritsar Railway Station on 17.01.2011. While attempting to save an elderly woman who suddenly came in his way, he fell onto the railway track and was run over by a train. He subsequently succumbed to his injuries.
The Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act awarded ₹8,67,640 with interest to his parents. Challenging the award, the Railway Administration contended that neither direct employment nor engagement through a contractor had been established through documentary evidence.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court relied upon the deceased’s statement recorded by the Government Railway Police during treatment, the testimony of witnesses and the Railway Administration’s failure to produce relevant contractor records despite opportunities. The Court observed that loading and unloading material connected with railway operations ordinarily forms part of the Railways’ business, attracting the principal employer’s statutory liability under Section 12(1).
The Court also clarified that the deceased’s attempt to protect the elderly woman was incidental to the performance of his duties, and therefore the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The Railway Administration’s right to seek indemnity from the contractor under Section 12(2), wherever applicable, remained unaffected.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the Union of India’s appeal, upholding the compensation award of ₹8,67,640 with 12% annual interest from the date of accident until realisation. It found no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.