Death caused by militants during employment is compensable where employment exposed the workman to that risk.

Harbans Lal was employed as a Peon/Chowkidar in the Cane Department of the appellant and was earning ₹1,000 per month.

He was killed by militants on 05.11.1988 during the course of his employment.

His widow and three minor children filed a claim under Sections 3 and 19 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (“1923 Act”).

The employer admitted the material allegations, while the insurer contested the claim.

The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Gurdaspur, partly allowed the claim on 30.08.2000 and awarded ₹78,824 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the accident, penalty at 3% of the compensation, and enhanced interest at 12% if payment was not made within two months.

The employer preferred an appeal under Section 30 of the 1923 Act, contending, inter alia, that the claim was barred by limitation.

The Court applied Sections 3, 10, 19 and 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Section 3 provides compensation where personal injury or death is caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment; Section 10 generally requires a compensation claim to be made within two years of the occurrence; and an appeal under Section 30 lies only on a substantial question of law.

The Court reiterated that proceedings under the beneficial legislation are not governed by strict rules of evidence and that the claimant must establish the case on a preponderance of probabilities.

Relying on Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak, 1969 (2) SCC 607, the Court held that “arising out of and in the course of employment” must receive a liberal construction.

It also relied on Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 3 SCC 409, which recognises that an injury or death resulting from a particular risk to which employment exposes a workman is compensable.

The employer had admitted that Harbans Lal was its employee and that he was killed by militants during the course of his employment.

The claimants’ evidence regarding his employment, salary and age remained unrebutted.

Applying the liberal interpretation of “arising out of and in the course of employment,” the Court found no basis to disturb the Commissioner’s factual conclusion that the death was employment-related.

Although the claim was filed approximately ten years after the accident, the claimants had pleaded that the employer assured them that compensation would be paid after the decision in another employee’s case, Darshan Singh, and that they delayed filing in reliance on that assurance.

The Court treated this explanation as sufficient to support the Commissioner’s rejection of the limitation objection.

Since the Commissioner’s findings were supported by the pleadings and evidence and were neither perverse nor based on no evidence, no substantial question of law arose under Section 30.

It upheld the award of ₹78,824 with interest at 6% from the date of the accident, penalty at 3% of the compensation, and the direction for 12% interest if payment was not released within two months of the Commissioner’s order.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.