Verna tragedy: PWD, contractor held liable for deaths

MARGAO
In a significant order, Labour Commissioner Levinson Martins has held that the PWD Executive Engineer, National Highway and the contractor are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the kith and kin of the four labourers who had died in the May 25, 2024 road accident at the Verna Industrial Estate.

In separate orders, the Labour Commissioner has directed the contractor and the PWD Executive to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days with the Commissioner for Employees Compensation under the Employees Compensation Act. The amount is to be paid through a Demand Draft drawn on any Nationalised Bank payable at Panaji, Goa India in the name of “Commissioner for Employees Compensation”.

In one case relating to the death of labourer Ramesh Mahato, the Labour Commissioner had directed the contractor and the PWD Executive Engineer to pay compensation amounting to Rs 13,60,275 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from June 27, 2024 till the date of actual payment within a period of 30 days.

Ramesh Mahato, a native of Bihar, was one of the four labourers who had died on May 25, 2024 after a bus rammed into the tented accommodation provided by the contractor, engaged by the government department to execute work at Verna.

During the proceedings before the Labour Commissioner, both the PWD as well as the contractor had argued that the accident was a pure case of drunken driving. The contractor had argued that the vehicular accident had occurred on account of negligence by the bus driver, who has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the fateful day allegedly under influence of alcohol.

In his order, however, the Labour Commissioner noted that the makeshift shelter/huts have been set up by the contractor next to the work place which infact is abutting the workplace of construction.

“The deceased was staying in temporary accommodation at the worksite, which, though unofficially claimed to be for “material storage”, was known to be used by workers including to stay there. The work being executed was under the supervision of the principal employer, and the engagement of sub-contractors or machinery does not dilute the employer-employee relationship for the purpose of statutory protection under the Act,” he observed.

On whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, the Labour Commissioner further observed the deceased was residing at the worksite, in close proximity to where the fatal incident occurred. “The location of the accident was not a public road unrelated to the worksite, but within or near the area where labourers were required to reside and report for work. The course of employment does not end strictly at working hours when the nature of employment requires labourers to remain on-site for extended periods, often including overnight stays. Further, the worksite was abutting the temporary shed where incident occurred leading to death of workers, who were without doubt in course of their employment and during their employment,” he said.

He added: “I am compelled to consider the death of employees as being in the course of and out of employment being captive workers to the project of construction which in fact is between the road and immediately abutting the workplace, which is also in tune with the theory of notional extension of work place. In fact, any death of worker during commuting from work place to his residence can be also considered as death during and in course of employment. This death case is definitely immediate to the workplace.”

Saying that the provisions of Employees Compensation Act squarely applies in this case, Martins held that compensation under Employees Compensation Act is independent of any other act in force, or any other benefit received and irrespective of whether the dependents have applied for compensation under Motor Vehicle Act or not.