Deeming fiction under Bombay Shops law extends compensation remedy to covered employees without strict workman definition

Section 38-A of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 applies the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the connected rules mutatis mutandis to covered employees through a deeming fiction, so they may pursue compensation for employment injuries without being confined to the narrower ordinary definition of "workman" under the 1923 Act. The provision is intended to extend the compensation remedy to employees of establishments governed by the Bombay Act. On that construction, an employee covered by Section 38-A could maintain a compensation application, and a contrary view that insisted on the isolated application of the 1923 Act's definition was legally erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether an employee covered by Section 38-A of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 can claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 without satisfying the ordinary definition of 'workman' under that Act.

Analysis: Section 38-A applies the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the rules made thereunder to employees of establishments governed by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, mutatis mutandis, as if they were workmen within the meaning of the 1923 Act. The provision creates a legal fiction and a deeming scheme intended to extend the compensation remedy to such employees. Reading the words 'mutatis mutandis' and 'as if' in their ordinary and purposive sense, the legislative intent is to enable employees covered by the Bombay Act to pursue compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, without insisting on the narrower definition of 'workman' in the 1923 Act being applied in isolation.

Conclusion: The employee was entitled to maintain the compensation application, and the contrary view of the authority below was legally erroneous.

---