NAGPUR: Coming to the rescue of a
Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable whose legs were amputated in an accident, the Nagpur bench of
Bombay High Court directed the labour court here to hear his plea for enhanced compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. He approached the court after his plea was rejected by the labour court on account of a five-year delay in filing the case.
While on duty, the petitioner Vijaykumar Malviya on December 7, 2007, tried to help a passenger who was about to fall off a running train and, in the process, himself skidded and got trapped between the train and the platform, and suffered grave injuries. Both his legs had to be amputated.
After recuperating, he learnt about a scheme and approached the concerned authorities seeking compensation and medical reimbursement of Rs1.77 lakh. However, a paltry Rs19,300 was sanctioned which too is yet to be disbursed.
He then approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) but withdrew the plea on August 1, 2012, due to jurisdiction issues. He then moved to the HC and again withdrew the plea on September 11, 2013 for the same reason.
In May 2014, he finally knocked the labour court’s doors. As the application was to be filed within two years of the mishap, he attached an application for condonation of delay where he explained that his movement was restricted due to his amputated legs. Even his artificial legs were of no help.
However, Malviya’s plea was rejected on January 3 last year, stating that there was an inordinate delay of over five years. He challenged the decision in the HC.
Justice Manish Pitale observed that after suffering from serious life threatening injuries which resulted in amputation of both legs, the appellant was obviously in discomfort. “After having recovered from such a serious incident, the petitioner seems to have acquired the knowledge of his right to compensation and took steps to air his grievance. It is unfortunate that he was given inappropriate legal advise to first approach the CAT and then to the HC. It can’t be said that the appellant was at fault or he slept over his rights,” he said.
The judge refused to agree to the railways’ contention that the delay in approaching the labour court on petitioner’s part was deliberate. “Sufficient grounds have been made out for condonation of such delay. The labour court committed an error in taking an extremely strict view and rejecting his application,” he said, while clarifying that even if the compensation was granted to petitioner, he wouldn’t be entitled for the interest on such amount due to the delay.
(With inputs from Tanuja Ratnaparkhi)
