Block Development Officer vs Muneeswari

Ms. V.M. Velumani, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant, against the award, dated 26.08.2004, made in W.C. No. 303 of 2001, on the file of Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.

The appellant is the second respondent in W.C. No. 303 of 2001. The respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants. The fifth respondent is the first respondent and the sixth respondent is the third respondent in the claim petition.

Facts of the case:

(i) According to the respondents 1 to 4, the deceased was working as a Painter and the fifth respondent is the Contractor of the appellant. During the course of employment, he was electrocuted and subsequently, he died. Contending that the deceased died during and in the course of employment, the respondents 1 to 4 claimed compensation of Rs.2,54,148/- as per the provisions of Workmen''s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The fifth respondent filed counter statement, denying the various averments made by the respondents 1 to 4. The fifth respondent mainly contended that the deceased was not his worker, but he was a Sub-Contractor. Therefore, the fifth respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

(ii) The appellant contended that the contract was given to fifth respondent, who employ the workers to do the work of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.

(iii) Before the learned Commissioner for Workmen, the third and fourth respondents were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and three documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A3. The fifth respondent himself examined as R1W1 and four documents were marked as Exs. 1 to 4 of R1W1. On behalf of the appellant, one Chellam and K. Subburam were examined as R1W1 and R1W2 and five documents were marked as Exs.1 to 5 of R1W1 and Exs.1 to 5 of R2W2.

(iv) The learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, considering the pleadings, evidence and arguments, held that the deceased was not a Sub-Contractor under the fifth respondent, but a worker employed by the fifth respondent. The learned Commissioner also held that the deceased died during and in the course of his employment and awarded compensation as per provisions of the Act.

Against the said award, the appellant has filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the contract was awarded to the fifth respondent. He only engaged all the workers including the deceased and extracted work from them. Therefore, the Commissioner erred in directing the appellant to pay compensation.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that as a principal employee, the appellant, is liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased. As per Section 12(2) of the Act, the appellant is entitled to indemnify by the fifth respondent Contractor. The learned Commissioner has rightly directed the appellant to pay the amounts and held that the appellant is at liberty to recover the amount from the fifth respondent. No substantial question of law arises in the civil miscellaneous appeal and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the civil miscellaneous appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

This civil miscellaneous appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

Whether the deceased was a workman as defined under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923?

Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that the deceased was a workman and fixing the liability on the appellant found was based on any legally acceptable excuse?

Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner regarding person liable to pay the sum awarded, as the appellant is correct as per Section 12(3) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act?

Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that the accident took place in the course of employment of the appellant so as to countenance the claim of the first respondent herein under the Workmen''s Compensation Act?

This civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed as against the fifth respondent on 18.03.2016 for non-prosecution. The contention of the appellant that the contract work is given to the fifth respondent and he only employ all the workers and there is no employee and employer relationship between the appellant and the deceased and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. This contention is untenable. As per Section 12(2) of the Act, as a principal employer, the appellant is liable to pay the amounts and recover the same from the Contractor. Section 12(2) of the Act reads as follows:-

"12(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the workman could have recovered compensation, and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner."

The learned Commissioner has appreciated the pleadings, entire evidence and Section 12 of the Act and awarded compensation as per provisions of the Act. The learned Commissioner also granted liberty to the appellant to recover the amounts from the fifth respondent, who is the Contractor. The fifth respondent has not filed any appeal rejecting his contention that the deceased was Sub-Contractor and not worker. Therefore, the contention of the respondents 1 to 4 that the deceased was worker under the fifth respondent was accepted by the learned Commissioner, which remained unchallenged. No substantial question of law arises and the appeal is devoid of merits. The appellant is entitled as per Section 12(2) of the Act, for being indemnified by the Contractor, as per the order of the learned Commissioner. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.